Lately I have seen several folks complaining that our license fees go to the general fund and that as a result not enough gets spent on fishing and hunting. Many folks are convinced that licnes fee are way more than the state spends on WDFW. I have been hearing this repeated over and over as proof that we fishermen are getting screwed. Well here are the facts.

All Washington agencies budget on a biennium basis - that is for a two year period. For the most recent two year period F.Y. 1999-2001 the WDFW took in approximately $60.5 million from all license sales. In that same period they expended $274.8 million. The difference between license revenues and total expenditures came FROM the general fund and from various Federal grants.

So, this is my question. Do those of you who were complaining about not getting full value for our license fee prefer that we cut the department to make it self-sustaining based on license fee revenues, or do you want to pay roughly 4 times as much for your licenses.

If you thought it wasn?t fair for license fees to pay for other state services, now that you know other tax dollars are subsidizing the department do you think that?s fair?

maybe they should do something like the check box on our tax forms that ask if you want to contribute for the presidential race or whatever it says i would pay more if need be sure would be nice if the extra monies collected went to a special program of some sort

stlhdfishn: I like it this way. As it is all citizens who pay taxes in the state are subsidizing our sport. Imagine how that must chap a member of PETA.

I think some degree of subsidy is okay becasue as AuntieM said we provide a valuable economic engine for state buisnesses, but I think we should pay at least half the cost. If we did our license fees would have to triple.

How about this for an idea? We keep licences priced as is. But to generate extra income we could have harvest tags (like deer,elk ) for the harvest of chinook,coho,halibut,sturgon,steelhead. Lets say $5 to $10 per tag. The tags would not be year dated so if you didnt fill you tag you could use it the next season. Tags would only be required for those 5 fish all other fish would not require a tag and harvesting them would be included in the price of the licence.And for fish managment you would have to return a filled out harvest tag to buy more tags.

Not a bad idea, but I'm not sure more money is the answer to fish problems. When you consider that the Dept. gets five times the money from the general fund and other funds than they get from licenses it seems to me they may have enough money.

I bet most of us would beleive that they would be swimming in money if our fishing licenses cost $125.00 which is about what they would need to cost if we were paying our full share.

So where do you think that difference came from? I'm willing to bet it was from Pittman - Robertson taxes and I'm also willing to bet that if you do some more research you'll find that those taxes collected came to a whopping lot more than was handed out to make up the difference. And that the remainder was used for things it was not meant for.

Get real. Obviously we're paying for it anyways. Whether it all comes from our licenses or from licenses and taxes. You guys act like we're taking from them. Do we forget how bad we are taxed in this state. Pay more for licenses. HA, you must work for governor Locke.

This will generate a bit more $$ for the department.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=1725

I believe Pittman Robertson and Dingle Johnson revenues help fund department considerably. If it was actually the numbers as stated above we would have every anti- group in the state crying fowl to the states subsidizing.. Something just doesnt add up to me but then again I am not usually accused of being the brightest bulb of the bunch..

How about if the extra money generated by harvest tags could not be put into the general fund. But would have to be used to improve fishing opertonities. Like 50% of the money would be used to buy/lease properties for better access to fishing areas, improve boat ramps, and such. And the other 50% used to help improve the hatcherys as needed to protect wild fish.

Glowball I said nothing about raising the price of the licence. You would only pay to harvest .And I am no fan of Locke cant wait till he's out of there.

The numbers I provided are public record and are audited. They are simply facts.

Did the money come from taxes - of course, there is no magic source of free money. I had no adgenda in publishing this info. I have been hearing for years the complaint that we are not getting our share of $ becasue our licnese fees go into the general fund. This is obviously not so.

I like the current system. I love others paying for my hobby. And as AuntieM points out we do provide a lot of tax revenue with our fishing related purchases.

I am not advocaeting huge license increases. But did want folks to know what a great deal we are getting.

Next I want to research the actual cost for an adult hatchery raised steelhead. Does anyone have that info? I have heard it was about $80.00 per fish, but when we start dealing with facts we learn that much of what is accepted as "common knowledge" is in fact completly erroneous.

here is the trickle effect of the subsidizing.

Pretty damn good bargain for the state and our economy.

Surecatch ,I do undertand those are public numbers and available to everyone.
I have been involved with this discussion before and if I am not mistaken those large expendatures involve some other funding that is not associated directly to the WDFW.
Take this with a grain of salt because I do not remember the entire discussion we were having and I am no means an accountant. It was like a 70/30 split. The numbers that you show do not collaborate that, so I am not sure what we were talking about.
Hopefully this thread will fuel some good discussion about it.

The below facts were from the CSF


http://www.sportsmenslink.org/Sportman/

=========================
Washington State

Hunters 227000
Anglers 938,000
Total Expenditures $1.4 billion
Total Jobs 23000
Salaries and Wages $600 million
State Tax Revenue $95 million
Ripple Effect on the State Economy $2.41 billion
STATE TAX REVENUE INFORMATION
Sportsmen in Washington annually pay $95.2 million in state sales and fuel taxes – this could pay 2,471 teachers' salaries or fund the annual education expenses for 14,650 students.

JOBS
Sportsmen support more jobs in Washington than Microsoft Corporation (22,766 vs. 20,000).




TAKE A CLOSER LOOK
Twice as many Washington residents hunt or fish each year as attend Seattle Seahawk games (1.02 million* vs. 508,367).
One of every six Washington residents hunt or fish.
Washington sportsmen annually spend 10 times more than the value of the state's commercial seafood landings ($1.4 billion vs. $134 million).
Washington sportsmen annually spend nearly twice as much as the cash receipts from the state's apple crop ($1.4 billion vs. $806 million).
* The figure for sportsmen is less than the combined number of hunters and anglers because a respondent who is both a hunter and an angler is counted in each category above

http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=1725

Here is a site that lays out the Dept. budget for 99-01.


I don't claim to fully understand all the info, but it sure looks to me like about $88M comes from the state general fund. What the composition of other revenue is I can not tell, but anyway you slice it license fees do not come close to paying the Dept's costs.

Again, I am not offended by the fact our license fees do not cover the Dept's. costs . I agree that we are a huge asset to the state's economy. I just want those who complain about license fees not going directly to the WDFW to know we are much better off the way it is. And those who complain about the high cost of a license to know that we are getting a real bargain.

Surecatch,, I think you posted the wrong link? You got the one I put up showing about the catch record card increase

Sorry bout the bad link. This should work.

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget01/supp01/477rx.htm

The general fund is the problem. Once money goes in there its lost. I understand the steelhead tags from a few years ago went to fund hatcheries and now that moneys gone.

CraigO:

Did you read any of the posts ? Did you look at the link to the budget? The general fund is NOT the problem. We get back much more than we pay in license fees. We pay in about 60 million to the General Fund and get back about 274 million. I wish I had a problem like that with my income taxes.

I am not going to get into the whole political debate around this issue but I have to say that our licenses are some of the best deals out there. for what i get out of my fishing/hunting i dont think there is a better deal out there.
I would pay more for a license if i had to.

Of all the western states Washington has the worst fishing in my opinion. oregon is as good if not better for salmon and steelhead. All the surrounding states have better trout fishing and oregon has much better warm water fisheries.
In my opinion Washington has some serious catch up to do in terms of quality fisheries. WDFW should not raise prices for any of their products until they have products on par with the rest of the region.

Rob Allen

You're right on!!

Cowlitzfisherman

Rob- would you raise prices to get better fisheries???

we talk about this all the time over at the refuge, regarding duckhunting licenses. its a good discussion.

D3Smartie

I take it by your reply, that you believe by "raising prices" of our fish licensees that we will be able to achieve "better fishing". Can you please explain to us how that works? Do you believe that more "money" going into a "general fund" will produce a "better fishery" for us?

I am all ears, so tell us how this will work!

Cowlitzfisherman

how can it hurt?, and its worth it. If your fishing license isnt worth it, dont buy it.

Our governments ( feds and states) are incredibly wasteful. giving them more money never solves anything. I am opposed to all new taxes, user fees and any think no matter what the service it affects. The state takes in more than enough money to accimplish everything it needs to do it needs to cut waste before they ask for another dime and i don't mean by cutting services... They need to do a better job with what they already have!

We have trusted them with a lot and they have failed. They need to earn our trust before asking for more! no more for fire depts, no more for police, no more for schools or roads or anything else until they prove themselves to be responsible leaders.

It's high time we become what we say we already are. " a government of the people, by the people, for the people!!"


Oh there is one exception.. I'd pay more for a license if the money went to hireing about a thousand extremely aggressive game wardens. Everyone should be getting checked ever time they go out!! I personally haven't been checked in Washington in about 15 years..

First, I need to say to AuntyM that you surely are not a politician, since you say things that make simple, common sense and also speak it with eloquence..... Now that I have that out of the way I will (as I always do) speak my peace.
1) Have any of you seen the salary of the biologists, etc. that work for the WDFW? You would be disappointed I am sure that these folks getting very nice salary/comp packages that have these fancy degrees cannot figure out how to shoot fish in a barrel (so to speak).
The last thing I want to do is hand them more money so they can hire more of these educated idiots to further screw things up with their "studies". I know they all mean well, and some probably even help, but for the most part they are their to justify a larger, costlier gov't.
I do think that fishing license fee's are not out of line, but I guarentee that giving them more will not stop the cutbacks (8.2 crabbing, etc??).
I say, start taxing the hell out of those that really do the most to deplete the resource, i.e., commercials and tribes. Now, getting again to the Tribes.... I know I am a broken record on this subject, but it is a bone stuck in my craw. Out of their 50% of the resource, how much do they pay in excise taxes and/or license fees.... Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is ZIP..... Being an "Soveriegn Nation" and all, they are not responsible for the taxes that ordinary citizens are, yet they take 50% of the resource, use the boat ramps and public facilities, well, you get the point. This is pure total BS as far as I am concerned. We are ALL AMERICANS, and we should all be bound to the same rules. They want the soveriegn thing? So be it, you are on your own. No more Gov't subsidies, no more federal (BIA) dollars, no more fishing outside of your "country's" boundaries, etc.... Let's see how it goes then....

I for one believe that if anyone thinks we should pay the real cost for our fisheries dept... then fine, the tribes owe 50% of that bill.... Fair is fair.....

MC

Oh.... now that I have taken a deep breath.....

WHAT IN THE WORLD IS UP WITH THAT $10.00 LAUNCH FEE NOW AT MUKILTEO????!!!!!!!!

I didn't pay it and acually wished I had gotten a ticket so I could really raise some hell. That is NOT justified whatsoever. Anyone know why they have done that? $5.00 is expensive enough, but acceptable. $10.00 to launch? No new docks, no fish cleaning station, etc....

Just have to shake my head.......

MC

I am all for user fees and if raising the price of lic. and putting a sur tax on gear etc. would put more $ into a fund that would enhance the spotfishing opportunity I would be all for it!

The thing that has me more than a little concerned is who or what does the figuring in this state?

While one report supposedly can tell us down to the dollar the price of each salmon raised in a hatchery, how many fish the sportsman catches, how many he releases etc. etc. etc.

NOBODY can tell you how many people work for the state!

I don't know what the answer is, but at my business, untill I know who cost me what for what, I don't have a clue where the money goes or comes from!

If WDFW could tell us how many people, vehicles, gear, office expense etc. we(the tax-payers) might be able to make some sort of an informed deduction if we need more money or if we need to cut expenses.

Does every boat need to be an Almar or a Seasport? How much is spent on administration. Do we need more enforcement?

I think WDFW is trying to do a good job.

I would gladly spend more to fund them,....IF...somebody could tell me where the money is gonna be spent, or at least how many people work for them and their salaries.

Should be a simple thing to do!



herm

Are not these expensive hatcheries there more to mitigte the tribes and comercial fishermen more than the sporty.Seems to me that on the columbia the tribes and comercials get first whack at the fish then us sporties get in there to clean up,that is if the state is still confident that they are going to reach there escapement.If not then oh so sorry sporty.

I think I am right in thinking that the bulk of the budget set every two years goes to hatchery production.

Thinking along these lines I Would think that the comercial and tribs should be shouldering the bulk of the costs.

After all what part do they play in the trickle down effect being touted around recently.Like this is something new.Sportsmen do great things for the economy.

I would also be afraid of paying anymore bios state money to study common sence.It is reel hard to get decisions made out of those positions because once the decision is made then the position goes away.Better to keep asking for funds then look for a job.Polititions want the study to follow there agenda anyways not speak the truth and require them to make a decision putting there heads on the chopping block per say.

Last year I spent about $3500 for a 7 day float trip to the Ayakulik river on Kodiak. The fishing was good, quality of experience better. If I spent that much for one trip, (and I assume that there are others that do this annually) I would certainly support an increase in fees IF fishing improved as well as quality of experience. I really dont like how we are "funneled" into an area but short, infrequent seasons. I'll use the Sekiu king fishery for an example.... It is a mad house. Way too many people, small place, short season (generally days long), scores very few points for quality of experience. There are many, many others.... lake washington sockeye, halibut in general, hood canal shrimping, etc... I would support annual limits with more liberal seasons similar to what Alaska does for Kings. At least we wouldn't have to all drive from opener to opener like were circus rodies.... We could get our fish without the crowds. I'd pay more for that.

Another thought... A substantial increase in fees would weed out the chum killers I see on the dungeness! You might of met him somewhere like the Quilcene? The guy who saw the river was full of salmon on the news, grabbed his trout rod, some big treble hooks, "I already caught 3, see" as he points to the three chums hanging from a tree branch, and continues to fish....