State developing proposal to hike fishing license fees

By ALLEN THOMAS

The Columbian (Vancouver, Wash.)December 13, 2014

Washington’s freshwater, saltwater, shellfish and razor clam licenses would increase by $2 per year, and some hunting license prices reduced, under a proposal to be unveiled by the Department of Fish and Wildlife in January.

An annual freshwater fishing license currently costs $29.50.

The license proposal is projected to generate about $2.2 million in additional revenue from recreational fees and $800,000 from commercial fees.

Guy Norman, the agency’s regional director in Southwest Washington, said the department’s state general fund revenue has been reduced by about $50 million since 2008.

Federal dollars are dwindling and the costs of managing fish and wildlife are creeping upward, he added.

Gov. Jay Inslee has directed most state agencies to identify how they would absorb another cut of up to 15 percent from general taxpayer dollars in the 2015-17 budget cycle.

The Department of Fish and Wildlife operates with 1,700 employees on a two-year budget of $375 million. The agency operates 83 fish hatcheries, manages almost 1 million acres of wildlife habitat and hunting areas, and maintains 700 boat ramps and water access sites.

The department also manages hundreds of species, including many listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/12/13...1#storylink=cpy

I'd pay more if they'd plant more.

Our license fees remain one of the cheapest recreational dollars going.

I bought my first license in the early 1960s. It cost $5.50 (freshwater only - the marine lic. was free). The average family income was approximately $6,000/year.

Today the average family income is approximately $60,000. In other words in terms of real dollars even with the proposed increase the combination lic. costs about the same as it did 50 years ago. And if we consider that the marine fisheries were support by general fund dollars and now we are looking to fund a significant portion of those activities with users fees one can argue that our licenses are getting cheaper!

Curt

Well, I suppose there is that cost side analysis. And while it may be accurate it begs the question of whether we are receiving the same value for that cost?

Kind of like saying the price of a Snickers is the same, adjusted for inflation, as it was in 1960 but ignoring that it has shrunk in size by 50%.

I do agree that licenses are still a good value but probably not the value they were when you (and I) first purchased them.

I sincerely hope that the Legislature and WDFW can find their collective path to improving both opportunity as well as the quality of that opportunity to include harvest.

The state is well on their way to running most of the license buyers out of this state. Lets see, lost opportunity, less fish plants, pay to play hunting, closing hatcheries, Western Washington Elk dying by the hundreds ( hoof rot), under the table after hour deals made with the Tribes (hunting and fishing), more permits and fee's, holding meetings accepting the public input and idea's and doing just the opposite after sportsmen input, the list can go on and on. If they are relying on the sportsmen dollars to help balance their budget of the general fund, I think they have already shot themselves in both feet.
I am no longer going hunt big game in this state after 38 years, going out of state. And for my fishing almost done with Washington also, not going to pay to catch Humpies. Tired of bending over and getting dry holed by the state of Washington.

I don't mind paying more for my license, but I don't want my extra money going to support commercial fisheries. I think if commercials take x% of the fish they should pay x% of the cost associated with managing those fish.

The sport angler shouldn't have to subsidize commercial fisheries.

So 39% comes from user fees - virtually all of that from recreational users. And 29% comes from the Feds with most of that being from citizen sponsored taxation on sporting goods at the manufacturer's/importation level then funneled back to the States. So, that is 68% coming from users and, again, virtually all of those being recreational participants.

So, what does Guy Norman say:

"Cuts to the department’s operations likely would include reductions in salmon and steelhead hatchery production, he said. The state’s aging hatcheries already are struggling due to deferred maintenance, resulting in costly emergency repairs."

Yup, gonna kill that Golden Goose yet.