Sorry, thought you were talking about the $10 increase x10 people. 
I like your $3 income tax increase idea. I also like the idea of some of the sales tax of outdoor related items going towards our natural resources.
It really could be a painless fix[angelic]
ok mabey i came off wrong on several ocassions in these posts i dont want anybody to think that i am not greatful for what fish and game has done for us they have done an amazing job with the chinook and steelhead and i am super greatful for it but i can barely afford to fish and hunt as it is and i dont make bad money. these are the things i grew up doing as a child. what is it going to cost my children to hunt in ten years? im all for conservation with out it we would have none of these amazing outdoor activities we have in idaho but i dont think that charging somebody to stop and look at a wood pecker is very fair.
here is a link for what FOIA intels. i dont think it applies to The department of fish and game sharing their spending habits with us.
I don’t see this going over very well in a less government is better state like idaho. It might be worth it if it got the fish and game to actually do their job. Just my personal experience but I haven’t been to impressed with the idaho fish and game. Last year I reported a violation that I’m pretty sure nothing was done about. I gave them first and last names, dates, locations, and the multiple incidence. Seems like that would be enough info to at least check on it. I know they didn’t because the guys who did it are some of my neighbors. I also had a friend who reported a big game violation that I thought was pretty serious (someone shot a buck and took the head and left the whole deer) they told him there was nothing they could do about it. I don’t know how serious a crime that is but if it’s not it should be.
I don’t think the money would make any difference. It’s bureaucracy and they would just take the money and make it a bigger bureaucracy.
Fly Goddess I’m sure you already have done this but when I checked on my kickboat it didn’t meet the standards to have to get a sticker. I’m sure you allready know what your boat needs but just in case you don’t have to.
It has an electric motor. But it is 10’, so if I didn’t use a motor, then no I wouldn’t need the sticker, cause the INVASIVE SPECIES only attack boats, toons OVER 10’…but they like all motors
idahoron wrote:
[/quote]
If the F&G came out and said, Entrance to F&G property is on a fee basis. A person must have a Fishing license, hunting license or this WMA conservation stamp to access the WMA’s. I would support this.
I feel that I have already paid to use these areas with my licenses I have already bought. By doing it this way the hunters and fishermen would already have paid. The hikers, bikers and bird watchers can foot the bill on this one. Ron
[/quote]
I agree with this completely. The fee should only apply to WMAs.
I think the state needs to kick some money to the F&G dept out of the general fund to support the non-game animals so all can benefit.
I’ve seen this mentioned a couple times, but pretty much overlooked by most on this thread so I’m going to mention it again. It says “Fish and game Management areas”. Personally that would suggest to me WMA’s. However the entire state is basically managed by the F&G. So shouldn’t someone actually try to find out what areas would be affected? I personally could support an access charge for WMA’s. That being said though I probably would not use it since I don’t use them much now. One way that I could fully support is if they allowed your WMA stamp of whatever we buy to hunt on them now to work for accessing and then others that are there for birdwatching, walking the dog, siteseeing etc. would have to pay the access fee if they don’t have the validation w/ their license. This would allow for every one to have to pay into they system without punishing those who already do.
If they want to cover ALL F&G management area (i.e. the entire state) I can guarantee they will be hearing my objections very loudly on this issue.
It is obvious Idaho is getting into trouble. Look what ALMOST happened to the Ranch.
But, here is a thought or two. One…what about your Lottery? It is suppose to help education, but they aren’t getting that much for whatever reason.
OR, as I mentioned, put $3. on Licenses and as mentioned Income Tax. No one is going to get hurt by this and it means big $.
If fishing and hunting license holders are exempt then it wont affect me much at all…but as junky stated, they could possibly ticket family that is only along for the ride then it could get tricky for some of us…My sister from out of state would like to go out and view the lake and take some boat rides, park visiting, camping, I wonder if we will have to check areas that are fee exempt, sort of like open fishing waters in a fishing regulation book lol…
I don’t think out of staters should be footing a larger bill anymore then already on the books…I went fishing in washington a couple weeks ago and paid 26.00 for a two pass of fishing…but we also paid hotel rooms, dinning, general expenses that helped the local economy…my $26 covered for 4 steelhead landed and a couple of whitefish..the dollar ratio for my license vs 1 fish kept is much higher then the locals that keep more throughout the year.
i agree fly. The states funds are definetly in trouble but thats how the times are. you cant turn on the news and not see something about the econemy, layoff, or bankruptsy of some sorts. i just wish rather than taking it out on the ppl who use these resources and are still willing to fork over the cash. they would learn to deal with what they have. if that means cutting some of the fish they would plant in the res. then in my mind thats something that would have to be delt with. i think the f&g wants to continue to run at full capasity if you will. but bottom line they arnt selling the tags, licenses. nor are the same number of ppl camping. which means loss income for them. they just cant continue to do what they have in good years. but just adding fees to other things like the invasive species now this does nothing but stick it to the ppl that still are coming and spending money.
- 5 percent decline in deer tags sold but hunter success increased to 34 percent over 33 percent in 2008.
- 6 percent decline in elk tags sold, but hunter success increased to 20 percent from 19 percent in 2008.
- 5.6 percent decline in pronghorn tags, but hunter success increased to 47 percent from 44 percent in 2008.
and if they think last years budget was bad with this kind of decline in sells. i can only imagine what the license increase will do to this years sells
This isnt the first year this has come up and the Idaho Waterfowl Association has talked with F&G before on it. And its their understanding that the program would apply to the WMAs. If youve been on one lately, the bathrooms need help, everyone uses them, the parking slots need barrier work, everyone uses them, the boat ramps and launches need some work, hunters fishermen, and many observers use them, and as we understand it, and it can change, they have looked at if you have a hunting or fishing license it would be an exemption. Thats what the understanding is and hopefully they will keep going that way. Its not a program to just get money to keep people from watching wildlife, its to help in areas that need help like so many of their WMAs. Weed control, everyone benefits, etc etc etc.
Before everyone wants to stop it, please get more information on it and im sure there will be more information about it. Look at where your license money goes and who it supports. As said on here already, arent you tired of supporting and benefiting all the lazy people around who dont want to contribute to keep the fish and game resources going and keep the facilities we all use in good shape?
I for one totally support it and even with buying license everyear, Id pay another 10 bucks if it goes to keeping the facilities I use and others in good shape and improvemnts going.
If anyone wants to see more discussions on this and join in a poll, go to these websites and see what the discussions are.
http://www.idahowaterfowl.org/forums/index.php?board=2.0
http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/forumdisplay.php?f=47
But please folks dont beat the Fish and Game up untill you know the whole program. We can loose a lot if they cant keep up with the fish hatceries, the WMAs and like so many have posted, the ones that take over their limits on not only fish but game also.
Think about it!!
What I read in the article was that if you already purchased a hunting or fishing license you wouldn’t be required. Your already paying for the upkeep of all the places the the bird watchers and nature lovers are getting for free. They are just wanting them to help. Example is Who takes care of and maintains the portnuef area. Your fees but not the nature people. if people don’t want to pay then let the roads grow back over and eliminate the 4 wheel trails and there would be more animals and if anybody wants to go hunting make them walk in and out I don’t think you’d have to pay if you were on the road
The invasive species charge is the dept. of parks and rec. none of it goes to F&G I’d have to check but I think the F&G isn’t in charge of the campgrounds either.
How much for a dinner and movey 50-60 bucks Fishing tag lot cheaper for alot more entertainment
i am aware that more than likely people with licenses already will not have to pay the extra fee. thats not what im worried about. and yes fish and game is not in charge of campgrounds or roads or invasive species stickers BLM, and the state are over that.
Once it goes on a tax form It probably would get sent to something else because the legislature would want it and they would get it
Jigs,
You might be willing to see the F & G cut trout plantings, but I for one am not. Most people buy licenses to fish planted streams and ponds. Very few target native fisheries. If you reduce plantings, watch the revenue from fishing licenses plummet, and and then, by your reasoning, the F & G would have to further reduce plantings. Seems to me to be a rather slippery slope! Most of the good fishing in our area–Lucky Peak kokes, Cascade, Boise River tribs, Horsethief, are all planted waters. Just another opinion. Mike
WMA’s are public land. (that means yours and mine) If you are there to experience the outdoors, watch wildlife, or for the excercise by hiking and biking there should be no fee. When we take away game, fish, or use the water for sporting events, recreation, etc., we should pay. Shouldn’t be another fee just for looking, hiking, etc…
Someone in F&G needs to get off the greedy trail of fee hikes and realize there is a limit to what the public will put up with…
They work for us…
Sorry, but I don’t agree. Does that mean that if the game warden catches someone fishing without a license, they shouldn’t give the offender a ticket because they hadn’t caught anything?
The hikers, birdwatchers, etc are using the area, same as we are. Trails, roads, and facilities have to be kept clean and maintained no matter if the person using them is there to hunt, fish, or just walk around and look at stuff for the day. It’s not like they never use the restrooms or don’t let their dogs **** on the trails and leave it for other people to step in.
Sad to say, not everyone takes good care of the public land when they visit. Some people feel the need to throw garbage everywhere they go, and someone has to pay for the cleanup. Right now, that’s us. Let everyone who uses the area share in the costs of upkeep, I say.
Jigs,
You might be willing to see the F & G cut trout plantings, but I for one am not. Most people buy licenses to fish planted streams and ponds. Very few target native fisheries. If you reduce plantings, watch the revenue from fishing licenses plummet, and and then, by your reasoning, the F & G would have to further reduce plantings. Seems to me to be a rather slippery slope! Most of the good fishing in our area–Lucky Peak kokes, Cascade, Boise River tribs, Horsethief, are all planted waters. Just another opinion. Mike
i see what your meaning and it would take them changing limits and size possible but if they changed the regulations it could work.