WDFW is short of funds to so everything they are tasked to do. Or need to do. Fish and wildlife management has to include a significant piece for habitat protection, acquisition, and maintenance (like the launches and sani-kan condition?). But, the Leg has its own problems in funding the vast array of demands on taxpayer funds-McLeary, Western State, prisons, roads, and that doesn't even scratch the surface.
WA and probably most states are moving more to flat-out user fees. Hunters and fishermen have shown a well recognized willingness to pay to play. When I started out in this game it was recognized by WDG that, for example, Opening Day Trout was a money-maker. The license revenue received more than covered the costs to produce. Which was also why hunting licenses cost more than fishing. It doesn't cost more to grow a deer or elk, but the hunter will pay more for one.
What viable alternatives are there??
From this user's perspective: not all consumptive users are paying their fair share. For example, in 2015 roughly 240K Puget Sound recreational crabbers ponied up nearly $2MM just in endorsement monies (not including a portion of the required shellfish license) and harvested about 2.8 millions pounds of crab.
The 249 non-tribal commercial crabbers took about 3.2 million pounds out of Puget Sound with an ex-vessel value of around $14 million. At $235 for each P.S. crab license those commercial operators paid a collective $58,515 in license fees for the opportunity to harvest more crab than does the entire recreational community. (see WDFW commercial license fee schedules at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/commercial/license_fees.html).
Going back to 2009 the WDFW's shellfish manager reported to the Commission that Puget Sound NT commercial crabbers paid $.02 per pound of crab harvested while recreational crabbers paid $1.46 (http://d3dkdvqff0zqx.cloudfront.net/groups/ccapnw/attachments/economic_data_crabs_wa%5B1%5D.pdf). I have not seen a more current analysis but suspect that the disparity has not changed appreciably.
So, back to my point. If there is going to be more emphasis on user fees then associated costs need to be fairly distributed.
And then there is the whole issue of what I will describe as unfunded mandates. If the Legislature is not going to provide funding sufficient to pay for what it demands of WDFW then the Legislature needs to be honest and adjust the demands to be consistent with the money it provides. But we know that won't happen.....
Edit: The link cited above to the 2009 data doesn't work but the document can be found searching "Non Tribal Crabbing in Washington."
Previous Topic
Index
