i agree with some of he stuff you say but i dont think what he was refering to had anything to do with a game warden catching somebody fishing with out a license.
I just wanted to congratulate everyone on going 60 posts on the same thread and keeping it civil.
This may be a new BFT record.
By the way, the Utah board could learn from your calm demeanor. Keep it up.[;)]
Windriver
Stacy: I don’t follow your logic… Of course you should be cited if you don’t have a fishing license.
I would have no problem with a fee increase on our various fishing/hunting/stamp licenses, it’s just that a separate fee for everyone that wants to visit a WMA would discourage use and IMO that’s not in the best interest of us all.
The enforcement would be a nightmare: F&G wardens stopping everyone present at a WMA? Maybe gates with a toll booth would be next? Sorry, I still don’t believe its in the best interest of the public…
only for you windriver only for you!
OH YEAH! WELL YOU &^%$% YOU GONNA TRY TO TELL ME *&&$%^&.
…sorry, I am in Utah right now 
On a serious note…
RIGHT ON SAINTS!!!
Stacy: I don’t follow your logic… Of course you should be cited if you don’t have a fishing license.
I would have no problem with a fee increase on our various fishing/hunting/stamp licenses, it’s just that a separate fee for everyone that wants to visit a WMA would discourage use and IMO that’s not in the best interest of us all.
The enforcement would be a nightmare: F&G wardens stopping everyone present at a WMA? Maybe gates with a toll booth would be next? Sorry, I still don’t believe its in the best interest of the public…
I agree the analogy was a bit of a stretch. The point is, if the offender hasn’t taken any fish, should they get a ticket for no license? But that’s besides the point.
As far as enforcement goes, it could always be done like in WA. When you buy the permit, you get a sticker to put on the rear window of your vehicle. If law enforcement comes along and sees a vehicle in the parking area where land use permits are required with no sticker, they write a ticket to the registered owner and put it on the vehicle. That way they wouldn’t have to stop everyone.
Since it’s a civil violation, if the registered owner wasn’t driving it, then all they have to do is call in and give a statement saying they weren’t the driver.
If someone of age has a line in the water and no license then they’re subject to a fine. I think our warden’s have it figured out regarding who’s fishing and who’s not…
We already have $25 annual use permits (or $4 per day) for many state day use parks that have tables, toilets, playgrounds, etc., that require trash and sanitation services. There is considerable confusion statewide since there are state, federal, interior, reclamation, etc., facilities that all have their own fee structures.
We don’t need another WMA fee structure IMO. What’s next? BLM use permits for taking a walk on our own public land? City park permits? County park permits? For looking, walking, hiking?
WMA’s are exempt to my knowledge just as BLM is exempt for these general uses and should remain so. The birdwatching example is the best example. You are watching birds at a WMA and get a fine because you don’t have another permit even though you didn’t see any birds… (game warden comes up and says, “I saw you watching that egret”)…
I occasionally go to the Strike WMA to watch and photograph the Mallard migrations with my grandson. Another permit? Where does it all end?
It’s not as if sportsmen are not paying their way now.
I currently have an annual fishing & hunting combo license w/ 2 rod permit. Steelhead and Salmon tags, annual trailer RV fees, annual boat RV fees, invasive species sticker, annual $25 day use fees, annual deer tags, etc., etc., etc..
I think we have enough different fees. No more. If they’re going broke, raise the current fees a bit. They’re still a bargain…
BTW: I don’t think any Idahoan’s would have a problem with increasing non-resident fees…
Using the “Fish and game Management areas” does seem vague and maybe intentional, but who knows. Add a 2 or 3 dollar fee to EVERY person who files taxes. That way the 40% who do not pay more than they get back will contribute as well. I do get tired of the state, county and the city wanting 5 to 20 dollars for all sorts of things. Like the Universal Connectivity fee on phones that we all pay that goes who knows where.
I couldn’t agree more with chrome_junky. I realize we need to pay to have our lands managed and so forth. I believe in a fee in necessary, those with valid hunting/fishing licenses need to be exempted. With all the little side fees attached to hunting and fishing already, it is becoming and expensive hobby! We need to spread the load onto the general public and give some relief to sportsmen. These pay to play fees have proven totally ineffective already. This has been attempted here in our state near the Boise area, the result was exactly what you’d think. The cost of enforcing the fee exceeded the profits from the sales. We are privileged to have so much public land we have access to, and I don’t mind paying for the management of said lands through my annual licenses and tags. However, I firmly believe this is a precedent. If we give the government and inch it will take a mile. Let us be citizens of action in taking a stand against this ridiculous idea. My email has been sent and I recommend we all call for public comment on this proposition in our emails to the F&G.
What I do not like about this is the fact that government agencies always think that the solution to any problem that they have is money, so they invent a new tax but then that is not enough so they hike up an old one. I do not mean to say that it is just fish and game agencies it is all of them. Just look at income tax first it was just supposed to tax the rich but it trickled down to every one but it was only supposed to be for a limited time now it is for ever. They have no concept of ;this is what we have to work with how do we make it go farther? The answer is just more money and then we can throw it at the problem. Maybe a conservation stamp could help with some funding issues but give us an option to pay or volunteer for a day, something besides just give us your money. Before too long we will no longer be the land of the free but the land of the taxed for everything.
All I can say is Bull ****!
Has anyone got a reply from F&G on this issue. I’ll I got was :
Thank you for sending us your comments.
They have been forwarded to appropriate staff.
idfginfo
Updated info on this topic:
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/tags/2010-idaho-legislature/
Scroll down to “Boyle: Charge picnickers, bird - watchers”
Holy Smoly…so, we go camping/fishing with Poky-mon, but if his girls & boy friends want to come they have to pay $10. each? Well at least it is ONCE a year…for now.
Charging all resident non gamers $10. and us out of staters to keep Idaho looking it’s best a nice…oh ya…$20. (Idaho loves this split). That ought to get some $
BUT now, those of us in Utah that do go to Idaho for a week or weekend, (that are paying the enormous out of state fee for a license) now have to plan on leaving the teenagers that are just going along for the ride, home or pay that enormous fee.
It just gets better and better…
I am sorry, but someone needs to ask Boyle, what will Idaho do without out of state money??? It is ALLOT!
Once again folks, it applies to WMA’s, not the entire state. If you go someplace other than a WMA you can camp, fish, hunt etc without the extra cost. There is a ton of land out there for those purposes that is outside the WMA’s.
I would have to agree. In the last 30 years of camping and fishing, I have only been to a WMA about 6 times and that was only for pheasant hunting. Even now I don’t think I would go back again because it was not worth the price of the WMA permit for the few birds I did get, and it really won’t be worth it if they tack on another $10.
exactly my point.
Once again folks, it applies to WMA’s, not the entire state. If you go someplace other than a WMA you can camp, fish, hunt etc without the extra cost. There is a ton of land out there for those purposes that is outside the WMA’s.
You know reading much of this I would agree with the WMA theory, but if you read the middle:
“I thought everyone that went on wildlife management areas or anywhere were hunters or fishermen,” Boyle told the House Resources Committee this afternoon. “If you do not hold a current hunting, trapping, and fishing license from Fish & Game and you want to go onto their lands, you would need to buy a conservation license.”
It is sounding like everywhere.
They definitely need to clarify some details here.
I have to agree that this is one of the more lengthy posts that also more interesting posts that I can ever remember reading. Interesting view points from both the out of state faction along with the Idaho residents. Can’t argue the fact that the out of state funds that pour into this state based on fees are extremely important and anyone making that type of investment has opinions that deserve to be heard. I don’t think that the WMA’s are nearly as important on the western side of the state, so it seems to be more of a regional issue. For me personally, understanding the pressure that the F&G is under financially, I buy a combo license with a second rod permit even though I don’t hunt and rarely if ever fish with two poles. I lived in Colorado for 20 years before moving to Idaho. I would give Idaho F&G an A- for their overall performance, Colorado DOW a C. Managing wildlife effectively with minimal staffing is a difficult challenge and my guess is that the portion of the F&G’s daily business that most people find objectionable can all be traced back to questionable decisions being made by politicians.
Could Idaho F&G do better? Most definitely but considering the odds they’re working against funding wise, I think that 95% of the time they’re doing an excellent job. I’ll get all of the reminder that I need here in a few weeks when I land that first Steelhead of the season and can thank a F&G employee for helping making it all possible.