Post by: kirkl on September 06, 2011, 08:05:58 AM
Thanks for pointing out the omission of the second deer tag on our licensing website. It was, as you first suggested, a mistake, and you can see the corrected table at https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/wdfw/licenses_fees.html.
As for your main point about the price increase, I asked our statewide game manager for an explanation. This is what he wrote:
Quality permit applications and licenses for species that can only be hunted by special permit (e.g. mtn goat, bighorn sheep, and moose) are considered premium opportunities and the cost to manage these species and provide hunting opportunity is proportionately higher than basic species like deer and forest grouse. These are more select or optional opportunities and therefore they cost more to purchase. By contrast, basic license fees (deer, youth, and small game) increased very little because we intentionally tried to keep hunting costs reasonable for families and for basic hunting opportunities.
The $66 price for a second deer or elk tag was recommended by hunters. The principle behind this recommendation was that the ability to purchase a tag to kill a second animal is a greater privilege than the standard license with its ability to kill a single animal, therefore the cost of the license should greater as well. We understand the choices that hunters will faced with and that some will choose to not purchase the opportunity. This “buyer resistance” was factored in to the revenue estimates.
Whether or not you agree with that rationale, I can tell you that the department has lost $30 million in general tax support over the past two years and the Wildlife Fund (supported by fishing and hunting fees) was showing a $10 million deficit for the current budget period. That’s how the fee increase came about.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on September 06, 2011, 08:33:05 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 06, 2011, 08:47:35 AM
"Quality permit applications and licenses for species that can only be hunted by special permit (e.g. mtn goat, bighorn sheep, and moose) are considered premium opportunities and the cost to manage these species and provide hunting opportunity is proportionately higher than basic species like deer and forest grouse."
What about Quality BULL and BUCK permits? What I read is these prices are going up too Now are they going to TRY to tell us they are more expensive to manage too?
Special Hunt Permit Applications $6.60
Special Hunt Permit Application - Quality $13.20
BS!
Post by: sebek556 on September 06, 2011, 09:34:02 AM
Post by: bobcat on September 06, 2011, 09:43:48 AM
Post by: Special T on September 06, 2011, 09:54:11 AM
Shooting a doe is not a premium hunting experience, it's a meat hunt, it should not cost more than your first deer tag.:yeah:
Since i find this to be the case i won't be putting in for the 2nd deer tag that i had gotten in the past... I'll just do something different...
Post by: Jerbear on September 06, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
As Field & Stream magazine stated years ago, Washington state has the most political fish and game department in the nation. Argue all you want, but it is not going to change, until we elect the game commissioners. Right now they have absolute control and they know it.
Post by: Curly on September 06, 2011, 11:15:14 AM
If there are surplus does that need taken, then they should just have a doe permit and NOT a second deer category. It is simply a money grab........and the price increase proves it. Truth is probably that they can't justify the taking of those extra does (biologically speaking), but if they can get enough money out of the sale of the permits, then they figure what the hell......they'll sacrifice some does if they can make X amount of permit fees off of hunters. :twocents:
Post by: spookgus on September 06, 2011, 11:20:05 AM
Post by: seth30 on September 06, 2011, 11:25:25 AM
If the department of wildlife wants to increase revenue from hunters there should be a plan to increase participation in the sport and not price people out of the sport. The department of wildlife seems to want less hunters and more revenue. I would like to see first time purchasers of hunting licenses be charged half price for tags and license. We need to get people hooked and keep it affordable or hunting will fade away for most of us. The first timer that thinks he will give this hunting thing a try by taking part in the dove season will get sticker shock when he has to pay over $50 to try to shoot a couple doves. I know most of us are going to continue to go hunting as long as we can afford it, but the prices are going to deter some from joining the sport.:yeah: the reason I have boycotted Upland hunting for the past two years.
Post by: DoubleJ on September 06, 2011, 11:34:36 AM
12,520 people put in for 2nd deer last year. 3,875 were drawn.
If 2/3 of the people from last year say "Screw you guys, I'm not even applying next year", they will lose $52,800 in tag application revinue.
BUT, with the fact that 4,000 people will still apply, they will still issue 3,875 tags. At the increased price, they will make an additional $155,000.
When you subtract the lost tag application fees, they will still make $102,200 in additional money.
That's if 2/3 of the people choose not to apply for the tags!!!!! That number is likely to be WELL short of 2/3. They may lose 2,000 people.
God I hate this state
Post by: bigtex on September 06, 2011, 11:35:57 AM
In regards to the price of the permit. I do not think you will see a huge decrease in the number of people that will put in for them. Quite honestly I think the notable decrease will occur in 2013, not next year. My reasoning is that many people do not stay in the loop in regards to fees, they simply head to their local sporting goods store every year and fork out the price no matter what it is. Many people, especially for 2nd deer permit hunts put in for them every year, so they have no reason to look at the price. Many of the people had already purchased this year's 2nd tag before the increase and would probably assume next year's will be the same only to face the sticker shock when they go into purchase next year's tag, that then might reduce the 2013 numbers.
There are some second deer permit hunts that don't meet the quota for permits, especially on the islands. I wish WDFW would sell off the permits that were not drawn, like in other states. There is a nice chunk of change that WDFW never gets because the fact too few people put in for a hunt. Any $ helps in these economic times.
Post by: seth30 on September 06, 2011, 11:39:04 AM
I do believe that there does need to be a second deer permit/hunt. I have spent time in many of these areas and there truely is a big problem with an increasing deer population. Unfortunately another issue is that in many of these areas the landowners do not allow hunting, but they are the same landowners that complain about the deer #'s. I remember one area that is fairly well-known for its overpopulation of deer actually wanted to eliminate the hunt and instead use either sterilization techniques or trapping the deer and moving them :dunno: . So in many of the areas you have an overpopulation of deer, a hunt to control or decrease the numbers, but resistance from many of the locals to allow the hunting, which obviously does nothing to decrease the numbers.Whidbey is overun, but lack of public hunting and many private owners like you stated resisting... We have a deer killed everyday here by a vechile. For Whidbey there should be no drawing for a second tag, it should be given to the local hunters, or hunters that have the fortune of hunting private property on the island. :twocents:
In regards to the price of the permit. I do not think you will see a huge decrease in the number of people that will put in for them. Quite honestly I think the notable decrease will occur in 2013, not next year. My reasoning is that many people do not stay in the loop in regards to fees, they simply head to their local sporting goods store every year and fork out the price no matter what it is. Many people, especially for 2nd deer permit hunts put in for them every year, so they have no reason to look at the price. Many of the people had already purchased this year's 2nd tag before the increase and would probably assume next year's will be the same only to face the sticker shock when they go into purchase next year's tag, that then might reduce the 2013 numbers.
There are some second deer permit hunts that don't meet the quota for permits, especially on the islands. I wish WDFW would sell off the permits that were not drawn, like in other states. There is a nice chunk of change that WDFW never gets because the fact too few people put in for a hunt. Any $ helps in these economic times.
Post by: headshot5 on September 06, 2011, 12:05:14 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 06, 2011, 12:10:49 PM
Post by: Curly on September 06, 2011, 12:26:21 PM
I don't know about the island deer, but the GMU I live in (666) has some 2nd doe permits and I just don't see the need for them here.
For me, it comes down to a trust issue. I don't believe anything that Dave Ware says anymore, so I am really skeptical of any reasoning that they come up with for just about any issue. :twocents:
Post by: buckman202 on September 06, 2011, 01:16:56 PM
I'd actually like for them to do away with most of the 2nd tag hunts they're offering. I don't believe we have the deer numbers to justify it. If the deer population in a particular area truly is overpopulated, then fine. But most of the permits I see are in areas which don't seem to have an excess of deer. As for the new price, I complained about it at first, but after mulling it over for a while, I think it's fair. For those wanting a second chance to hunt deer in a given year, it's a great opportunity to get out in the woods again. However, having said that, I will not be applying for it next year, but only because I'm on a real tight budget right now, with two kids and only one income. I could see myself putting my kids in for it in a few more years when they're old enough to hunt, simply to give them more time in the woods.:dunno:
sorry I totally disagree with the first part of that statement. I feel as though the state should make second deer tags more available, especially in certain areas. With the exception of Mule deer in certain areas deer populations within the state are doing good almost too good. By thinning out some of the white tails especially where I live will not only help hunters,farmers, current white tail populations, but also help the mulies have more a fighting chance rather then just be pushed into the harshest of areas. just my :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on September 06, 2011, 01:23:35 PM
Quote
sorry I totally disagree with the first part of that statement. I feel as though the state should make second deer tags more available, especially in certain areas.
That's ok, I'm not used to people agreeing with me anyway. You do need to read all of what I said, such as this part:
Quote
If the deer population in a particular area truly is overpopulated, then fine.
I'm thinking more of the areas that I'm most familiar with, which would be blacktail deer. I can see where the 2nd tags may be needed on the islands, and many of the GMU's which are mostly farmland/private property. In that case I don't have a problem with them.
Post by: buckman202 on September 06, 2011, 01:31:37 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 06, 2011, 01:49:47 PM
What I didn't like seeing was the 2nd tag hunts they added last year in Southwest Washington. They had permits in a lot of units, which I really do not believe have an overabundance of deer. But heck, what do I know, maybe the WDFW really did base all of the doe permit numbers on scientific fact, and not just with the idea that the more permits they offer in more areas, the more people will apply, and the more revenue they will bring in. (nah, it couldn't have been that)
Post by: C-Money on September 06, 2011, 02:30:08 PM
Post by: luvmystang67 on September 06, 2011, 02:52:23 PM
Love how $40 doesn't seem that bad to people. I spent some time in North Carolina. $40 was the "Sportsman" tag. Included fishing and hunting for all wildlife in the state, fresh and salt water. 6 Deer, 2 Bear, 2 Turkey were covered in that $40. We pay over $80 after application fees and the hassle of applying to shoot 1 doe in a certain area. Bull.
Post by: kirkl on September 06, 2011, 03:06:59 PM
and they want 66 bucks here for residents.
Post by: FC on September 06, 2011, 03:09:12 PM
I do believe that there does need to be a second deer permit/hunt. I have spent time in many of these areas and there truely is a big problem with an increasing deer population. Unfortunately another issue is that in many of these areas the landowners do not allow hunting, but they are the same landowners that complain about the deer #'s.
This issue is pretty stupid, if the land owners are unwilling to allow a hunt than they should suck it up and deal with it. I can't believe that anyone would suggest sterilization or trapping when there are so many willing to hunt them. If they added their properties to a list with wdfw they could easily have youth hunts organized or firearm restricted type hunts with specific rules in place to protect equipment and livestock if they were concerned with centerfire rifles being used on their property.
Post by: buckman202 on September 06, 2011, 03:46:10 PM
Post by: huntinguy on September 06, 2011, 09:00:56 PM
I do believe that there does need to be a second deer permit/hunt. I have spent time in many of these areas and there truely is a big problem with an increasing deer population. Unfortunately another issue is that in many of these areas the landowners do not allow hunting, but they are the same landowners that complain about the deer #'s.
This issue is pretty stupid, if the land owners are unwilling to allow a hunt than they should suck it up and deal with it. I can't believe that anyone would suggest sterilization or trapping when there are so many willing to hunt them. If they added their properties to a list with wdfw they could easily have youth hunts organized or firearm restricted type hunts with specific rules in place to protect equipment and livestock if they were concerned with centerfire rifles being used on their property.
I think they are starting to try and move that way with the master hunter program.
I do agree though, if a landowner complains to the game department they should be given two options: deal with it or allow some form of hunting, be it the landowner or the game department has a list of hunters to draw from or allow open hunting.
I respect the landowners rights to their land and understand their point of view. Not one of us would like someone messing around in our yards. Even on a farm... one person mistakes a cow for a elk, or drives across a field that has irrigation ditches in it, leaves a gate open or closes an open one, leaves a mess for the landowner to clean up.... All of these things I have seen. I understand.
We keep being told that the game animals belong to EVERYONE in the state, the land does not....
As hunters we need to become more active in politics, environmental concerns and community outreach. It is the only way that I can see we will keep our sport alive.
Post by: finnman on September 07, 2011, 01:50:09 PM
I personally love my venison, but I will not be applying for any more 2nd deer tags at that price! And If I draw out of state next year I will not hunt WA at all!
Again the only reason they are still around is simply because they are the goberment! If they were a private company they would have been long gone!!!!
Post by: Bob33 on September 07, 2011, 02:40:15 PM
I suspect the average hunter's perception of WDFW these days parallels the public's view of Congress.
Post by: KopperBuck on September 08, 2011, 08:28:49 AM
Post by: bobcat on September 08, 2011, 08:34:36 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 08, 2011, 08:49:19 AM
"the omission of the price...was a mistake...". "..the increase was recommended by hunters..."
I suspect the average hunter's perception of WDFW these days parallels the public's view of Congress.
WINNER!!!! WINNER!!! :yeah:
Post by: bobcat on September 08, 2011, 08:53:35 AM
Quote
"the omission of the price...was a mistake...". "..the increase was recommended by hunters..."
Yes I have no doubt both of those statements are lies. Just like how they said the changes to the permit system last year were supported by hunters. (when 99.9% of hunters didn't even know anything about it prior to the change!)
Post by: DoubleJ on September 08, 2011, 09:10:27 AM
I think I said this once before, but this will now be a great tag for kids, as the youth price is only $22. For this reason I am actually liking the big price increase, because it should make the tag a much easier draw, and in a few more years I will be putting my kids in for this one.
My thoughts exactly. I'd like it better if disabled would be in there too but, that's just me being selfish. I hope the draw odds are better for my kids now.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 08, 2011, 09:19:24 AM
Post by: DoubleJ on September 08, 2011, 11:35:50 AM
Quote"the omission of the price...was a mistake...". "..the increase was recommended by hunters..."
Yes I have no doubt both of those statements are lies. Just like how they said the changes to the permit system last year were supported by hunters. (when 99.9% of hunters didn't even know anything about it prior to the change!)
Sorry, no ill will intended. Nothing to see here. Move along
Post by: bobcat on September 08, 2011, 11:44:18 AM
Post by: DoubleJ on September 08, 2011, 11:45:38 AM
Post by: Camp David on September 08, 2011, 12:09:48 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on September 08, 2011, 05:35:38 PM
I'd actually like for them to do away with most of the 2nd tag hunts they're offering. I don't believe we have the deer numbers to justify it. If the deer population in a particular area truly is overpopulated, then fine. But most of the permits I see are in areas which don't seem to have an excess of deer. As for the new price, I complained about it at first, but after mulling it over for a while, I think it's fair. For those wanting a second chance to hunt deer in a given year, it's a great opportunity to get out in the woods again. However, having said that, I will not be applying for it next year, but only because I'm on a real tight budget right now, with two kids and only one income. I could see myself putting my kids in for it in a few more years when they're old enough to hunt, simply to give them more time in the woods.
The state can pocket more cash by charging you a second tag fee rather than 6 bucks for a doe permit. :bash:
Post by: Movemonger on September 08, 2011, 10:07:12 PM
If the department of wildlife wants to increase revenue from hunters there should be a plan to increase participation in the sport and not price people out of the sport. The department of wildlife seems to want less hunters and more revenue. I would like to see first time purchasers of hunting licenses be charged half price for tags and license. We need to get people hooked and keep it affordable or hunting will fade away for most of us. The first timer that thinks he will give this hunting thing a try by taking part in the dove season will get sticker shock when he has to pay over $50 to try to shoot a couple doves. I know most of us are going to continue to go hunting as long as we can afford it, but the prices are going to deter some from joining the sport.
Your thinking too much like a business owner. (makes sense to make new customers) That's why this practice will not be adopted.
Post by: steeleywhopper on September 09, 2011, 01:06:00 PM
My wife is a Tribal member and I think she will be learning how to shoot, her tags are only $5 a piece. I have never had her take advantage of her tags, but its getting out of control now. Screw this state and special permits. No more buying into this corrupt system for this guy! (insert picture of me flipping the state of Washinton the bird)
Post by: spikehunter on September 09, 2011, 04:24:14 PM
Post by: fremont on September 11, 2011, 05:48:18 PM
Post by: bigtex on September 11, 2011, 06:11:40 PM
If you really want to get mad, ask yourself why the general fund attributable to WDFW is going away. I sat next to a very pregnant unwed lady the other day who told me in great detail how she is getting the state to pay for her upcoming birth. Her second. Both paid in full by taxpayers.
This is at the request of WDFW.
WDFW wants to be more self-reliant on their budget. They want to get a smaller portion of their budget from the General Fund and more from the Wildlife Fund. This is why this year several licenses fees were moved from going into the General Fund to the Wildlife Fund.
Post by: fremont on September 11, 2011, 06:55:02 PM
These agencies are forced to think and act this way, because there's no legitimate way for them to fund their long-ago-established mission due to money being siphoned for things that 40 years ago would NEVER have been funded.
State parks, WDFW, etc. are core governmental functions for the benefit of the citizens. Unfortunately, we taxpayers must not only pay for an unbelievably huge array of social services (a goodly portion of which goes to recent transplants), but we must also pay for these deemed nice-to-haves.
As a fourth-generation Washingtonian, this makes me very upset.
Post by: Mr T on September 11, 2011, 08:43:42 PM
Post by: lokidog on September 11, 2011, 09:20:13 PM
They don't meet the quota because they are PRIVATE land areas and most land owners do not want unknown yahoos hunting in their YARDS as that is where the bulk of the animals reside, not in large foodless tracts of forest. By raising the prices for tags in these areas, they will never reach the quotas and remove the numbers of deer that the biologists "desire". Especially on some of the smaller islands where the deer are smaller than average. There is no way in Hell I am going to pay $60+ dollars to harvest ONLY a doe and get 20 to 30 pounds of meat!!
If WDFW had the best interest of the animals AND hunters (the people who presumeably pay their salaries) they would take factors like the needs and desires of LOCAL landowners into consideration.
Post by: winshooter88 on September 11, 2011, 09:58:47 PM
If you really want to get mad, ask yourself why the general fund attributable to WDFW is going away. I sat next to a very pregnant unwed lady the other day who told me in great detail how she is getting the state to pay for her upcoming birth. Her second. Both paid in full by taxpayers.
This is at the request of WDFW.
WDFW wants to be more self-reliant on their budget. They want to get a smaller portion of their budget from the General Fund and more from the Wildlife Fund. This is why this year several licenses fees were moved from going into the General Fund to the Wildlife Fund.
Sorry Bigtex, but I have talked with Phil Anderson, Dave Ware and Nate Pamplin about these cuts and they all said that the cuts came straight from governor Gregoire as part of trying to reduce the deficit. None of them said that they didn't want any money from the general fund. They said that they would like all the money from tags, licenses and permits and money from the general fund. The reason they want money from the general fund is because the money from licenses, tags and permits isn't enough to fund all the things that are required of the WDFW.
Post by: Special T on September 12, 2011, 09:58:43 AM
Lots of business have had to tighten the belt and figure out its CORE objectives are, what their customer really want, and shed good parts of their businesses that are no longer relevant. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on September 12, 2011, 10:14:56 AM
Post by: winshooter88 on September 13, 2011, 02:08:03 AM
Post by: Little Chief on November 21, 2011, 09:05:36 AM
They compounded this issue by failing to communicate directly with those hunters privileged enough to receive these permits. Many of you like myself will not even consider purchasing my second deer tag and until I have filled my first. For some it’s a financial commitment for other it’s an ethical issue but inevitably I guarantee that the State of Washington is well aware of when second deer tags are purchased. This premeditated manipulation of the fees was engineer to drive revenue and in my opinion they’ve admitted to as much.
They had the resources and means to communicate with us directly regarding these changes and they failed to do so. In any other line of business this would be seen as an unacceptable practice, so why should the state be any different? Sure we can contact our local politician, we can gripe at our local game management representative, or we can complain to one another about how unfairly we’ve been treated. In my opinion I think we could accomplish much more as a collective body of Washington sportsman and bring into question legitimacy of such manipulative business practices. We can’t make up the rules as we go, why should the state be allowed to?
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2011, 09:51:54 AM
Curly Unfunded mandates is the root of many political problems. the WDFW should prioritize its spending and actions. No funting no work... If hunters are paying the freight, well then they get the programs. :twocents:
Post by: Jack Diamond on November 21, 2011, 10:06:32 AM
Post by: buckfvr on November 21, 2011, 10:23:04 AM
Yea I feel like maybe were just living in to different worlds, I drew a modern doe tag this year and also am a master hunter so if I do not fill my general tag I can take a doe in December. I have landowners calling me asking if I want to come out to their place and shoot a doe. Offering me a 6 pack if I do. Granted i'm not trying to boast but it just seems to me the 3 GMU's in which I hunt in have more than enough deer to not only withstand the current special permits but also would be great if they increased them as well. I am no wildlife biologist so I might be off with that comment but when I go on a 5mile drive and see 47 white tails just from the road that maybe game management needs to be adjusted a little bit.
I can also road trip and see many, many whitetails on private lands. I have permission to hunt a good deal of it near my place, and going from the seat of your truck to the walk about in the woods.........even adjoining lands will at times be void of deer.....noticeably so when they have gone to the fields.
It is difficult for traveling hunters to get permission to hunt local farms and ranches, not as bad for those who live in the area, but still not easy. My own observations and advice would be to not take deer you see on private properties into account when considering more tags/permits. Trespassing signs are abundant and in many cases equal sanctuary.
Its more about changes in management practices.....from managing totally for revenue, to REALLY caring about our game animals, and managing for healthy herds.
Save some budget monies???? Many ways to achieve that, like doing away with multi-tasking and letting our game wardens be just that.....quit spending money on all the latest tactical and commando gear, and spend more time in the woods, like they did years ago. Getting politics out of the game management business would change many things for the better. THe political arm of WDFW, IN MY OPINION, prevents our wardens from contributing to the well being of our herds.
Post by: 180-GRAIN on November 21, 2011, 10:36:01 AM