So you’re saying the fish and wildlife department employees should work in a dump, and use old, unreliable equipment when out in the field? Think how much land they have to cover and oversee.
While I’m not sure what the budget is for Idaho’s F&W department, in most states it’s chronically underfunded and always under attack from politicians who want to use license funds for something else.
A Washington state combo license (fresh/salt) with two pole permit runs almost $75, and if you’re fishing for salmon or steelhead out of the Columbia, it’s an extra $9 on top of that. I don’t see where people in this state get off pissing and moaning about how much they pay in license fees. [crazy]
You and I both know that the lost revenue due to wolf introduction has to be offset by something. After all, when you get to view a wolf in the wild like this, there has to be a surcharge.
I wonder what the real deal is here. My observations are that many policies originate based on a situation in or around Boise. That is where the head cheese lives and if there is F & G property there where non-sportsmen walk their dogs every day, I can see where it would grate on the fish cops sense of well being. You may notice that they plant left-over steelhead in the Boise River for folks to fish for but can’t seem to pull it off anywhere else.
My wolf statement was partially to throw gas on your fire since I kind of know your feelings on that subject but there is some truth in the fact that our F & G is financially strapped. An article in the Idaho State Journal this morning discussed the wolves and how they dramatically affected non-resident elk license sales. The F & G made it worse by raising license fees but the bottom line is there is a funding shortfall.
Hi new guy here, just thought I would lend some insight to this conversation. The fees would be for WMA’s
“In the future, outdoorsmen in Idaho may be paying a fee to use Idaho Fish and Game Management Areas”
I think this is a good idea because in the early parts of duck season I tend to hunt WMAs because there is lots of birds and decent hunting. If this helps with more COs and better equipment for them to catch game thieves, then I would gladly pay it.
im not saying fish and game isnt strapped im sure they are. but i personally believe this is because they are horrible at budgeting the money that they do get. example- a 2005 pickup truck that is well maintnanced will go anywear a 2010 pickup will. or a 2005 snow machine vs a 2010 snow machine. i understand things like gps, radio collars, fish traps, bear traps. etc. this is just my opinion and i am entitled to it and i am aware there are people who disagree with me. but it is not fare to my wife if i hop in my truck and go for a drive to look for deer during hunting season and she wants to go for a ride and has to buy a $10 dollar conservation license to do this.
now if this just applies to WMA than i wont be so upset about it but still its not right IMO does the city or county charge people to walk their dog around the greenbelt here in idaho falls? well they probably can and will after this goes through. and im sure it will include roller bladers, joggers, etc.
The ball is a rolling. 4 years ago, my out of state was $54 or somewhere around there, then $84. and this year $97. PLUS the $20 each sticker for two pontoons.
This is ALL out of staters. So the next time you see a Utah license by a lake or river…remember at what price.
I was born and raised Idaho and I will retire there, so yes, you will see my Utah plate there, but it is getting tougher.
One reason I still do it, is you have campgrounds that are free still. Take them away, and I won’t be back. My $140. should buy me something, I know I buy allot of fish for that.
Put up the good battle people, I will do the same, but it seems when Idaho F&G makes up their mind, there is no stopping them.
LIKE the invasive species sticker. One minute, they are considering it, the next minute, the law (I know that wasn’t F&G, just sayin’)
agreed. im on your side. they jack up licenses and tags every year. i think it should be mandatory for places like fish and game parks and rec. blm to produce public records of what they purchase after all technically they work for us.
I understand the sentiment of what you are saying and I certainly will be angry if I end up paying another $10 on top of my license fees, invasive sticker fee, Ririe boatramp fee, etc… However, I believe the F&G is in serious need of a permanent funding source. Their budget rises and falls with the economy just like many of our jobs do. Yet they are expected to manage the hunting, fisheries and nongame species for an ever diverse population who is pulling them in all sorts of directions.
I have known many F&G officers/biologists and all of them have been hard working individuals. The lounge chair types might be in Boise but I don’t know them.
As far as their equipment goes we have short memories. A few years ago they were all driving ancient trucks that were falling apart on a regular basis. They finally decided to upgrade the whole fleet. I don’t begrudge them the equipment necessary to do their jobs to the best of their ability.
I say thank the F&G for the great job they are doing given the difficulty of their job.
I still do like the fact they are raising the fees, even if it is for the WMA. To hunt pheasants on the WMA, I all ready have to buy a permit which comes out to around $4 a bird. I will not pay another $10 to hunt there. This last year the hunting on the WMA I was on was terrible. I hunted it 4 different trips and seen more deer than pheasants at a ratio of about 10 deer to 1 pheasant. Not worth it. This does seem like a way for the rich to still enjoy hunting while the poor get kicked to the side, again.
On the fish and game site it shows there is already a WMA permit fee. If I am not mistaken it is $23.75. Does this mean an extra $10.00 tagged on? I am all for helping the Fish and Game out, because in all reality they do a lot for us but this is getting crazy.
You realize, Myself, Husband, a couple of Brothers and friends…10 total…That is $1,000. Just in my little get together.
Money should NOT be an issue, management IS however.
F&G does not “work for you” in any way. They provide a service to you so that you can enjoy the luxuries of the outdoors. Hunting and fishing is not a right, it is a luxury. You may pay license fees that go towards salaries, but in the end you are not forced to do so.
As far as license fee increases, especially out of state licenses, look to Oregon. An out of state fishing license has increased from $61.50 to $106.25, a total increase of $44.75 in one year. Do I think that is a little out of hand in one year? Yes, but I’m willing to pay it to do what I enjoy.
But then it goes up again next year, then the following…plus new fees tacked on…PLUS the fact that this license is only good from Jan.1st to Dec. 31st and you are only able to use it maybe 4 to 6 months.
You will think twice and look for other options.
Question, if we don’t buy licenses, then there would be no need for F&G, plus they would have no money, so…don’t you think we do pay their salary and that they do work for us?
We pay police salary, and hopefully, that is a service we don’t need as well.
What bites is having no control over what we pay. I pay for SCHOOLS and I have no children…is that right?
I can see that fishing and hunting was set up to be paid for by license fees, but that was the old vision of a few officers policing the laws. That was what fish and game was originally set up to do.
Things have changed DRASTICALLY, and their jobs and our expectations have changed. The funding needs to change also. Some of the non-game and conservation issues need to be funded from state general funds, or put a $5 conservation fund on the income tax, and have everyone pitch in their penny. If everyone paid it wouldn’t have to be that much, if it went directly to F&G and NOT into the general fund.
The idea that we can support all that Fish and Game is now asked to do, by license fees alone is stupid, antiquated, and unrealistic. They aren’t just policing the laws anymore. Sure there may be some waste, but individually they don’t make much money. Most of them are there because they love the land and want to preserve our wildlife, fishing, and hunting. We need to help them out by getting the funding structure changed.
flygoddess, I agree that we pay their salaries. I don’t however agree that they work for us. You don’t make any of the decisions on what they do. If we had regular Joe Schmoe computer biologist making our F&G decisions it would be total chaos. You pay them to provide their expertise and service so you can enjoy the things you enjoy doing outdoors.
Like I said in an earlier post, don’t buy licenses and see what happens. Nothing would get done within the F&G and there definitely wouldn’t be an abundance of salmon coming back every year. Take it from someone that has lived on both sides of the fence when it comes to this. It seems to me in the publics eye the F&G is never doing a good enough job or screwing up. It’s kind of hard to get a lot of work done with a limited work force because of your budget.
I owned a bar years ago. The Bar did outstanding for several years. Then the laws started to change, no more brown bagging. Business dropped off, we sold less alcohol. So, my partners decided to raise the price of the drinks. They wanted to get the same money we use to get off 100 drinks out of 50 now.
We lost even more people[:/] The bar is gone now.
What I am getting at, hitting a select group (out of staters) with the HIGH fees is going to effect everyone, as they will quit coming.
BUT, tack a $3. on income tax…an amount most can live with, seriously[;)]
and we are talking some major $
Oh and for the record, my early post 10 people @ $100. each equals $1,000. right?[sly]