Larry, from the "Crab Wars" of recent past, remember the "Required Financial Analysis" of the enacting RCW for the $10 penalty. They estimated slightly over a Million $$$$$'s revenue, and said they were going to hire 1 LEO and 2 Statisticians. And that would probably with bennies come up to around $350,000 to high side of $400,000 per year. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder "How" the larger portion of that Revenue Pot-O-Gold is gonna get spent?????? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, another Audit of the 2000 - 2006 year CRC Restricted Fund, . . . . . . . .


NOT

John:

You are one cynical old phart. Doesn't make you wrong though....an important distinction!

With roughly 216 thousand CRCs having been issued and a return rate just over 51% for 2010 one can reasonably expect 100,000 folks to be eligible for a $10 hit when purchasing a 2011 endorsement. At $10.00 a pop that is $1MM if all of those folks want to participate. I also agree with your $350-$400K for those three positions leaving $600-$650K for other uses.

Kind of begs the question of why they need to raise the P.S. endorsement by, what, $4.50? At 216,000 participants that is almost $1MM ($1,000,000) on top of the penalty.

I ran some numbers this past year and concluded the following for the 2009 season:

Excluding dealer fees but assuming all P.S. recreational crabbers purchased licenses the total licensing expenditure (revenue to WDFW) was $3,431,642. (Note: This is certainly somewhat high as there were youth, one day, and senior issuances that would not have generated the standard fee.)

The commercial fleet pays the State licenses fees that equate to $.00018 per crab harvested. Compare that to each recreational crabber paying the WDFW $14.50 to harvest, on average, 2.83 crab, or $5.12 per crab available to them.

I realize that the forthcoming changes would have some affect on these numbers absent any increases in recreational fee. I present this to point out the huge disparity between what the commercial fleet currently pays versus what is paid by the recreational crabbers.

So, while I recognize a need for more revenue to the Department (as well as the need for cost management) I also believe the Department will need to be very transparent in what it seeks both in the amount of revenue and how they propose spending it.

A revenue increase of approximately $2MM on top of the 2009 figure would be roughly 57%. Food for thought.

Why Larry, that's about the sweetist thing anybody has told me in a long time. See Young'ins, that's how us Old PHarts think. Especially true regarding the Department's lack of transparency, especially when I periodically go to that website that downloads the entire personnel rooster with $$$$'s and Yob/Position descriptions. With a Headquarters Overhead approaching 60%, and with YOBS having absolutely nothing to do with F & W, i.e., IT, PR, Finance/Accounting, etc., etc, I think old Phil Andersen ought to "Grease Up" in preparation ("H") with his upcoming Meet & Greet The License Buying Goobers (that's us) Tour. If he even gets to within a 100 miles of the OP, I'll be there asking the basic management 101 questions. Wanna bet Childers won't be there!!!!!

Even my wife of 35 years thinks I am sweet on occasion. So, thank you AuntyM. (and I hope this tactfully addresses any other possible comments)

"Tactfully"

This thread has morphed but I want to address one more issue regarding crabbing and the recent decision by the Commission which also included input that the Commission is still looking for increases in CRC returns and reduced on the water violations and the request that sport groups become involved in efforts to achieve those goals.

In re-reading my post from yesterday I had a minor epiphany but I want to preface my comments that we are a military family so this is an observation and not a blanket criticism or accusation. Sufficiently covered myself?

The military has a significant presence in greater Puget Sound from NAS Whidbey to Joint Base Lewis McChord and everything in between. Those facilities have large numbers of young folks always looking for outdoor activities. I suspect a number of them purchase P.S. crab endorsements each year.

Being military they are also subject to short notice reassignments, deployments, and training exercises. In addition, the fact that many are young and here for a short duration may limit their connection with local resource management objectives and regulations.

In short, I suspect their CRC return rate as a group lags behind the general population making them a group which might benefit from any forthcoming efforts by sport groups to improve CRC returns and reduce on the water violations. Seminars sponsored by Morale, Welfare and Recreation with doses of how and where plus regs and CRC requirements could be a way to reach that group.

I hope the request for sport group involvement yields a positive response and that we hear more about it in the months ahead.

"The military has a significant presence in greater Puget Sound from NAS Whidbey to Joint Base Lewis McChord and everything in between. Those facilities have large numbers of young folks always looking for outdoor activities. I suspect a number of them purchase P.S. crab endorsements each year.

Being military they are also subject to short notice reassignments, deployments, and training exercises. In addition, the fact that many are young and here for a short duration may limit their connection with local resource management objectives and regulations."




My wife's brother was on the Trident sub's, seems like it would be more than reasonable to just have a box to check when you buy a tag stating your in the military. Tough to turn your tags in when your 1000 miles offshore and 200ft underwater for 6 months.

Actually Larry, that in fact makes the case for CRC reporting Year Round, especially that @#$%^&* Website reporting option. It also makes me wonder if other controlled tags/reporting also has the same problem. I would urge you to contact the F & W Commission/Commissioners and related the problem, and possible solutions.