collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Initiative to revamp the Game department?  (Read 13297 times)

Offline Dhoey07

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 3274
  • Location: Parts Unknown
    • No Facebook for this guy
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2012, 05:37:25 PM »
FYI,
All recreational and commercial hunting and fishing fees go into the Wildlife Fund, which only funds WDFW. The notion that these moneys go to the general fund is wrong.

In theory

Offline Skyvalhunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 15706
  • Location: Sky valley/Methow
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2012, 05:37:43 PM »
Well then they best update the WDFW home page
The only man who never makes a mistake, is the man who never does anything!!
The further one goes into the wilderness, the greater the attraction of its lonely freedom.

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 10277
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2012, 05:39:10 PM »
FYI,
All recreational and commercial hunting and fishing fees go into the Wildlife Fund, which only funds WDFW. The notion that these moneys go to the general fund is wrong.

In theory

How is that a theory? It is in state law that the fees from licenses, tags, etc are deposited into the wildlife fund.

Offline washelkhunter

  • Region 5 State Delegate #3
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2011
  • Posts: 3549
  • Location: Vancouver
  • Site sponsorhttp
  • Groups: TPE, NRA, RMEF, AST
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2012, 08:52:02 PM »
The truth is we are the minority no matter how you cut it.  But they use the same old formula as for everything else; we are being effectively mined because we care about the sport and the resource. therefore we will pay and pay some more to pursue that which by just being a human being is our most basic essence. TO BE A HUMAN BEING IS TO BE A HUNTER. If this is true then no one entity or establishment can morally regulate that which is the most basic and natural function of man. To hunt is to live, and the state cannot morally deny us our right to life.  Im all for sharing the load. Its high time all the mountain bikers, hikers, bird watchers, campers, pickers, sightseers, daytrippers, garbage dumpers,
road warriors, wood cutters, atv'ers start paying their share. My gripe is having to pay so much more than we already are. Why isnt there a Mtn bike license anyway. Is there a special rec tax on mtn bikes? for the benefit of wildlife, trail maint etc: and others. Between my son and i we are in for $500 in lic and fees in 2011. If 500 of us didnt hunt next year they would lose $125,000 just in basic licenses and fees. Say 5000 didnt buy thats $1,250,000 lost dollars just in lic fees. you could add 10X that in lost revenue and taxes for business and govt. Oh yeah, there gonna notice right quick. The upside is we all just go next door and hunt in Id, Or, Mt, Ak, you get to do something different and probably have better success to boot. I hope WDFW reads this blog. :yike:

Offline washelkhunter

  • Region 5 State Delegate #3
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2011
  • Posts: 3549
  • Location: Vancouver
  • Site sponsorhttp
  • Groups: TPE, NRA, RMEF, AST
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2012, 09:13:13 PM »
 :yeah: Im with ya pendoreilleadventures. WDFW is now with parks and rec. thats how this discover pass req got hung around our necks. The pols have always been keen on getting there hands on F&W money and now its open season on that bankroll boys. gotta pay for pensions and bennies somehow ya know. the govt class must be serviced first and foremost.  customers come in last place way behind special interest wolf loving, tree hugging, sea lion loving crowds and other misguided myopic dogooders.
Can we sue WDFW for selling us licenses to take the states claimed wildlife and then charge us to be on state land after the fact?

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 24823
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Make it Rain!
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2012, 07:38:39 AM »
Big Tex, I think what he is trying to say is the have and will find a way to maneuver money however they want.  For example The license plate fund. WDFW had thier budget cut by that exact amount. The snow, seaduck "permit/endorsement" that we now pay. I pay a water fowl endorsement that used to cover it. Those funds were "dedicated" for some purpose, and now those funds are spent filling the $$$ gap...  Like many of us I am not afraid to pay my share, many of us think we are getting shorted for the $$ we give them.  IF the state was hunter angler focused and only worked on that, then i would say go for it. However the WDFW has many mandates that service people who don't help the agency. Would hunters call complaining about black bear problems? As the state cuts back its funding of the WDFW they are not also reducing the "State" demand for its services. THAT is the main problem.





















In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself. 

Confucius

Offline 300rum

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 2306
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2012, 08:41:47 AM »
I am for giving wildlife management dollars over to the RMEF (Big Game), Pheasants Forever (Small Game) and Trout Forever (Inland Rivers/Lakes/Hatcheries) (as examples).  Maybe not those particular groups but user groups with a better history of management then politicians and life long “public” employees that have worked their entire life taking money from the taxpayer.  Put a couple of bureaucrats on the board to oversee. 

When you have people with no outside experience in the “real world” work force, no idea of being an entrepreneur, business owner or “real life” management experience, they are born and raised with a mentality of carving out an existence and artificial “need” in order to justify their existence (and paycheck). 
   

Offline KillBilly

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2007
  • Posts: 3667
  • Location: OLY, WA.
  • I kill therefore I Am
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2012, 09:12:10 AM »
I am for giving wildlife management dollars over to the RMEF (Big Game), Pheasants Forever (Small Game) and Trout Forever (Inland Rivers/Lakes/Hatcheries) (as examples).  Maybe not those particular groups but user groups with a better history of management then politicians and life long “public” employees that have worked their entire life taking money from the taxpayer.  Put a couple of bureaucrats on the board to oversee. 

When you have people with no outside experience in the “real world” work force, no idea of being an entrepreneur, business owner or “real life” management experience, they are born and raised with a mentality of carving out an existence and artificial “need” in order to justify their existence (and paycheck). 
 


I don't know about the others but RMEF would have lots of good banquets with your money... send it out of State...and oh by the way, they won't solve any of the existing problems

Some people spend their entire life wondering if they made a difference. Marines don't have that problem.
He who shed blood with me shall forever be my brother.

Offline Elkaholic daWg

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 5956
  • Location: Arlington Wa / Rock n Roll-Kelly Hill
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2012, 09:34:35 AM »
FYI,
All recreational and commercial hunting and fishing fees go into the Wildlife Fund, which only funds WDFW. The notion that these moneys go to the general fund is wrong.

In theory

How is that a theory? It is in state law that the fees from licenses, tags, etc are deposited into the wildlife fund.


And then the thievery is attempted, just as with ORV funds


CCA alert today  (12/12/2011)



We recently alerted you to Governor Gregoire's supplemental budget proposal for WDFW to "shift" $1.5 million in recreational fishing and hunting license fee revenue from the Wildlife Account to subsidize salmon for commercial fishing interests. For background, you can read the letter  CCA and other organizations sent to the Governor and key legislators opposing the proposal. The proposal was also recently discussed by Tom Nelson and Rob Endsley on The Outdoor Line on 710 AM in Seattle.

On Wednesday, CCA, PSA and other allied organizations also testified on the issue before the Senate Ways and Means Committee. You can view that testimony by

 clicking here.

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2011120054#start=1534&stop=2117

The legislature is currently in special session to consider the Governor's budget proposal, including the proposed raid of recreational license fee revenue.

All recreational anglers and hunters should be alarmed by the precedent this would set -- to take funds generated by recreational users to continue subsidizing commercial fishery interests, particularly after seeing a $15 million dollar recreational license fee increase passed by the legislature earlier this year to backfill WDFW's budget. Even more troubling, it appears that the Governor chose the license fee shift proposal over other options submitted by WDFW, including a proposal to end commercial gillnet fisheries in Grays Harbor that cost more to manage than they generate in economic activity and many times more than they pay to the state in license fees and excise taxes.

We all support the need to maintain important hatchery production, but it is time to reform how the state manages (and funds) our state fish and wildlife and end subsidizing commercial fishing interests.

Please click the link below to email your legislators in opposition to this proposal.


Click the link below to log in and send your message:
http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/ccapnw/B6Bt4E3N.aspx


You have received this message because you have subscribed to a mailing list of CCA Pacific Northwest. If you do not wish to receive periodic e
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 09:44:58 AM by Elkaholic daWg »
Blue Ribbon Coalition
CCRKBA
SAF
NRA                        
Go DaWgs!!

Offline Wenatcheejay

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 4723
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #39 on: January 06, 2012, 09:48:22 AM »
Good post, it seems we are an endless trough for the Gov.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 24823
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Make it Rain!
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #40 on: January 06, 2012, 02:39:28 PM »
I know this statement will get a few riled up... I have hear it said that if want land to be managed to the best of its potential then it should be private. Just ask BP where most of his guiding takes place? I would bet for him and many other guides it is on private land.  Priivate land owners NEED to take all kinds of revinue and management intoconsideration in order to make a living and keep the land clean and sustainable. Ranching, farming, logging, hunting, fishing can and usually do work to gether more on private land.

look at how things are working now one some timber property. You can now buy acess to these areas, and what do you get over public land? Locations closer to the city, Less people, less garbage, Less thieves... Controling acess and the use of resources provides some measure of controll.   Those are all problems that the current public land has huge difficulties controlling. Most solutions are just gates to keep it walk in only...







In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself. 

Confucius

Offline bearpaw

  • Family, Friends, Outdoors
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 37051
  • Location: Idaho<->Colville
  • "Rather Be Cougar Huntin"
    • http://www.facebook.com/DaleDenney
    • Bearpaw Outfitters
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, F4WM, NWTF, IOGA, MOGA, CCOC, BBB, RMEF, WSTA, WSB
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #41 on: January 06, 2012, 02:53:27 PM »
I am for giving wildlife management dollars over to the RMEF (Big Game), Pheasants Forever (Small Game) and Trout Forever (Inland Rivers/Lakes/Hatcheries) (as examples).  Maybe not those particular groups but user groups with a better history of management then politicians and life long “public” employees that have worked their entire life taking money from the taxpayer.  Put a couple of bureaucrats on the board to oversee. 

When you have people with no outside experience in the “real world” work force, no idea of being an entrepreneur, business owner or “real life” management experience, they are born and raised with a mentality of carving out an existence and artificial “need” in order to justify their existence (and paycheck). 
 

I support many organizations, but SCI stands out as one of the best in my opinion. 70% of what every banquet brings in stays with the chapter. SCI chapters in WA have funded many great projects within this state. Another great organization is the Hunter's Heritage Council, they fight for Washington sportsfolks on the state legislative level. As WFW continues to grow we hope to also benefit sportsfolks here in Washington.

I still think we are better off to wait on revamping the WDFW until after this Nov election. :twocents:
Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!

http://bearpawoutfitters.com Guided Hunts, Unguided, & Drop Camps in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wash. Hunts with tags available (no draw needed) for spring bear, fall bear, bison, cougar, elk, mule deer, turkey, whitetail, & wolf! http://trophymaps.com DIY Hunting Maps are also offered

Offline 300rum

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 2306
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2012, 03:37:05 PM »
The basic idea is to put the responsibility in the hands of people who deeply care and have a great track history, not someone depending on a paycheck that has never had a job outside of what is generated by tax revenue.  All of the money generated from Hunting/Fishing taxes would be be divied up to these organizations (whomever they be).  Dollars would go much, much farther and there would be many, many volunteer hours which would replace $100+/year salaries.   

I am for giving wildlife management dollars over to the RMEF (Big Game), Pheasants Forever (Small Game) and Trout Forever (Inland Rivers/Lakes/Hatcheries) (as examples).  Maybe not those particular groups but user groups with a better history of management then politicians and life long “public” employees that have worked their entire life taking money from the taxpayer.  Put a couple of bureaucrats on the board to oversee. 

When you have people with no outside experience in the “real world” work force, no idea of being an entrepreneur, business owner or “real life” management experience, they are born and raised with a mentality of carving out an existence and artificial “need” in order to justify their existence (and paycheck). 
 

I support many organizations, but SCI stands out as one of the best in my opinion. 70% of what every banquet brings in stays with the chapter. SCI chapters in WA have funded many great projects within this state. Another great organization is the Hunter's Heritage Council, they fight for Washington sportsfolks on the state legislative level. As WFW continues to grow we hope to also benefit sportsfolks here in Washington.

I still think we are better off to wait on revamping the WDFW until after this Nov election. :twocents:

Offline JLS

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2010
  • Posts: 4622
  • Location: In my last tracks.....
  • Groups: Support the LWCF!
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #43 on: January 06, 2012, 03:48:17 PM »
Big Tex, I think what he is trying to say is the have and will find a way to maneuver money however they want.  For example The license plate fund. WDFW had thier budget cut by that exact amount. The snow, seaduck "permit/endorsement" that we now pay. I pay a water fowl endorsement that used to cover it. Those funds were "dedicated" for some purpose, and now those funds are spent filling the $$$ gap...  Like many of us I am not afraid to pay my share, many of us think we are getting shorted for the $$ we give them.  IF the state was hunter angler focused and only worked on that, then i would say go for it. However the WDFW has many mandates that service people who don't help the agency. Would hunters call complaining about black bear problems? As the state cuts back its funding of the WDFW they are not also reducing the "State" demand for its services. THAT is the main problem.

The budget monies that were cut from WDFW were general fund monies, not dedicated license monies.

Some states don't receive any, or very little in the way of general fund monies.  In these situations, hunters often end up footing the bill for urban wildlife issues.
Matthew 7:13-14

Offline Wenatcheejay

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 4723
Re: Initiative to revamp the Game department?
« Reply #44 on: January 06, 2012, 03:57:35 PM »
An interesting thread for April 1st would be did you spend more or less on tags for 2012.

For me,

No Small Game license
No Waterfowl Stamps
No Turkey Tags
No Turkey Permits
No Salmon Stamp for the Columbia
No two pole endorsement
No fishing license unless I actually fish
No saltwater
No Cougar Permits
No Doe tag entrees
No Buck tags
No 2nd deer
No Spring Bear Permit
No Lifetime License Raffle
(There may be more cutbacks)
This also means no spent fuel, no eating out, no camping during these seasons, no motels ect... No tax revenue.
No taking other people out accept for my little ones.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Bearpaw Season - Spring 2024 by Machias
[Today at 09:19:44 AM]


SB 5444 signed by Inslee on 03/26 Takes Effect on 06/06/24 by hughjorgan
[Today at 09:03:26 AM]


Walked a cougar down by 2MANY
[Today at 08:56:26 AM]


Springer 2024 Columbia River by WSU
[Today at 08:31:10 AM]


Average by lhrbull
[Today at 07:31:56 AM]


Let’s see your best Washington buck by Pathfinder101
[Today at 07:22:11 AM]


CVA optima V2 LR tapped hole for front sight by Remdawg
[Today at 07:09:22 AM]


Which 12” boat trailer tires? by timberhunter
[Yesterday at 08:22:18 PM]


Lowest power 22 round? by JakeLand
[Yesterday at 08:06:13 PM]


1x scopes vs open sights by JakeLand
[Yesterday at 07:29:35 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal