Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122
Results 421 to 440 of 440

Thread: State bill on harvest tag fees and more....

  1. #421
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    8,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    I know a guy with a 6 year degree that can't get piss out of a boot with instructions on the heal.
    I bet he's smart enough to know that boots generally don't have instructions printed on the heel.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It

  2. #422

    Default

    MGH55,

    I was hoping they would scan the kip and see if it was a local fish. I was surprised that all they wanted to know how long fishing to caught the king, when all the info was right next door. Everyone started at 9 am and the time was recorded with the person's name who caught the king. Total number for the day. How easy was that to collect the data. Seems a waste of the federal money to me. They should have been asking that all winter with everyone who fished kings, maybe we could log the info like salt charter captains already do.
    I have worked with several long term biologists both state and federal, those guys are not in it for the money! They love what they do! They also have things they hate about there jobs, politics is a big one, office politics…the other is folks who think they know how to do there jobs better then they do, arm chair bio's like we have on this form that think they are the only one's that know anything.

  3. #423
    Member Hoyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    Whoops...fwowed up in mouth a wittle bit.

    erik in ak nailed it.
    but looking at this thread I am appalled at how freakin cheap hunters are. Pay to play boys... And at $5-10 bucks a tag we weren't even approaching latté prices. Geez. Get a grip.
    I do pay to play. I buy a Hunting/fishing/trapping lic every year. I wish they would just increase the lic significantly and leave the tags for what they were intended (harvast data). I have no problem paying extra. Like I said before, I'd pay $150 for my annual combo lic. I do't get why everyone is so focused on a few bucks for tags. Leave them free, and hike that lic fee up!
    "If I could shoot a game bird and still not hurt it, the way I can take a trout on a fly and release it, I doubt if I would kill another one." George Bird Evans

  4. #424
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Methinks that would be a good use of said funds, as ADF&G consistently loses the best and brightest candidates to the Feds and other employers that pay more. If we want the best biologists, we need to pay competitive wages.
    +1 Thank you!

    Brett

  5. #425
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoyt View Post
    I do pay to play. I buy a Hunting/fishing/trapping lic every year. I wish they would just increase the lic significantly and leave the tags for what they were intended (harvast data). I have no problem paying extra. Like I said before, I'd pay $150 for my annual combo lic. I do't get why everyone is so focused on a few bucks for tags. Leave them free, and hike that lic fee up!
    I believe that's where we find ourselves. The license amount is to be determined.

    Brett

  6. #426
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,021

    Default

    Something else...

    Resident priority. I want it, but why should ADF&G or the BoG make it so? Understand something, people. Those elevated to senior manager positions in a large bureacracy like state government, don't get those jobs because they are the most qualified. They (typically) get them because they are the least offensive option to potential objectors. They are political survivors reaching for the brass ring of a Range 24-27 appointment for the 3 years prior to their retirement so they can cash in.

    Now, assuming these managers and decision makers are competent, reasonably astute persons who know the numbers and who strive to make their departments/divisions function as well as they can, why would they EVER give residents anything other than lip service when it's the non-residents who pay the lion's share of the bills? I wouldn't if I were in their position. Assuming I survived my initial idealistic naivete', once it became obvious that I was dealing with a mob of irrational children I would walk that tightrope as best I could for as long as I could, further squeezing the non-residents for as much as I could get away with while quietly conceding to demands from their facilitators i.e. the guides lobby.

    Money is leverage. Accordingly, those who pay the most get to say the most.

    As it is now we residents do not pay our fair share. You do the math from here.
    If cave men had been trophy hunters the Wooly Mammoth would be alive today

  7. #427
    Member cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
    Posts
    2,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik in AK View Post
    Something else...

    Resident priority. I want it, but why should ADF&G or the BoG make it so? Understand something, people. Those elevated to senior manager positions in a large bureacracy like state government, don't get those jobs because they are the most qualified. They (typically) get them because they are the least offensive option to potential objectors. They are political survivors reaching for the brass ring of a Range 24-27 appointment for the 3 years prior to their retirement so they can cash in.

    Now, assuming these managers and decision makers are competent, reasonably astute persons who know the numbers and who strive to make their departments/divisions function as well as they can, why would they EVER give residents anything other than lip service when it's the non-residents who pay the lion's share of the bills? I wouldn't if I were in their position. Assuming I survived my initial idealistic naivete', once it became obvious that I was dealing with a mob of irrational children I would walk that tightrope as best I could for as long as I could, further squeezing the non-residents for as much as I could get away with while quietly conceding to demands from their facilitators i.e. the guides lobby.

    Money is leverage. Accordingly, those who pay the most get to say the most.

    As it is now we residents do not pay our fair share. You do the math from here.
    Go ahead and buy that if u want. I'm not. I believe in ethics even in the face of overwhelming odds. People that expect less are as big a problem as the unethical that hold office. The cure for that is to expect more and hold them to it. Accountability.
    Your sarcasm is way, waaaayyyyyyyy more sarcastic than mine!
    WWG1WGA! QANON

  8. #428
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,021

    Default

    Except for the fact that the Division of Wildlife Conservation doesn't have an ethics problem, or a competency problem. It has a funding problem.

    Funny how guys who are quick to demand accountability over how the "public's money" is spent usually limit themselves to F&G. (Granted this is a hook n' bullet forum) I never read demands to know where every penny of gasoline taxes go, or even income taxes (and God knows were getting raped there). I'm especially surprised that more members of this forum aren't demanding to know how all the alcohol and tobacco taxes they pay are being spent. ($44/carton in Anchorage)

    Nope. Not a peep, but start suggesting we better fund the one function of government that manages the thing we love most in the word and the hew and cry and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments reaches Biblical proportions.
    If cave men had been trophy hunters the Wooly Mammoth would be alive today

  9. #429
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    3,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik in AK View Post
    Except for the fact that the Division of Wildlife Conservation doesn't have an ethics problem, or a competency problem. It has a funding problem.

    Funny how guys who are quick to demand accountability over how the "public's money" is spent usually limit themselves to F&G. (Granted this is a hook n' bullet forum) I never read demands to know where every penny of gasoline taxes go, or even income taxes (and God knows were getting raped there). I'm especially surprised that more members of this forum aren't demanding to know how all the alcohol and tobacco taxes they pay are being spent. ($44/carton in Anchorage)

    Nope. Not a peep, but start suggesting we better fund the one function of government that manages the thing we love most in the word and the hew and cry and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments reaches Biblical proportions.
    Actually, I would love to know where every dime of our taxes go. That's getting into politics though, and we aren't supposed to go there.
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  10. #430

    Default

    What cod said plus one,,,this is a outdoor forum ,not an alcohol tobacco fuel forum

  11. #431
    Member Mel Roe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kodiak
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik in AK View Post
    Something else...

    Resident priority. I want it, but why should ADF&G or the BoG make it so? Understand something, people. Those elevated to senior manager positions in a large bureacracy like state government, don't get those jobs because they are the most qualified. They (typically) get them because they are the least offensive option to potential objectors. They are political survivors reaching for the brass ring of a Range 24-27 appointment for the 3 years prior to their retirement so they can cash in.

    Now, assuming these managers and decision makers are competent, reasonably astute persons who know the numbers and who strive to make their departments/divisions function as well as they can, why would they EVER give residents anything other than lip service when it's the non-residents who pay the lion's share of the bills? I wouldn't if I were in their position. Assuming I survived my initial idealistic naivete', once it became obvious that I was dealing with a mob of irrational children I would walk that tightrope as best I could for as long as I could, further squeezing the non-residents for as much as I could get away with while quietly conceding to demands from their facilitators i.e. the guides lobby.

    Money is leverage. Accordingly, those who pay the most get to say the most.

    As it is now we residents do not pay our fair share. You do the math from here.
    Actually if you look up the numbers the residents pay way more than the non-residents in the overall scheme. This came from fish and game's web site and I posted this when this same debate came up about the same time last year. "From fish and game's web site "Of the $3.4 billion spent by hunters and wildlife viewers in Alaska in 2011, resident hunters and wildlife viewers each spent more than $1 billion. Visiting wildlife viewers spent $1.2 billion, while visiting hunters added some $150 million. That spending generated more than 27,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in labor income."
    Kodiak Island Adventures
    907-539-6474
    Shearwater 38' Allen Marine Catamaran
    Lana J 40' USCG inspected

  12. #432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mel Roe View Post
    Actually if you look up the numbers the residents pay way more than the non-residents in the overall scheme. This came from fish and game's web site and I posted this when this same debate came up about the same time last year. "From fish and game's web site "Of the $3.4 billion spent by hunters and wildlife viewers in Alaska in 2011, resident hunters and wildlife viewers each spent more than $1 billion. Visiting wildlife viewers spent $1.2 billion, while visiting hunters added some $150 million. That spending generated more than 27,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in labor income."
    That is a sort of deceptive set of statistics as it lumps resident hunters and wildlife viewers together but then separate the numbers oh nonresidents

  13. #433
    Member Mel Roe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kodiak
    Posts
    201

    Default

    It seems pretty clear that resident hunters spent 1 billion, resident wildlife viewers spent 1 billion, non resident wildlife viewers spent 1.2 billion and visiting hunters spent 150 million and this came directly from fish and game
    Kodiak Island Adventures
    907-539-6474
    Shearwater 38' Allen Marine Catamaran
    Lana J 40' USCG inspected

  14. #434
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mel Roe View Post
    Actually if you look up the numbers the residents pay way more than the non-residents in the overall scheme. This came from fish and game's web site and I posted this when this same debate came up about the same time last year. "From fish and game's web site "Of the $3.4 billion spent by hunters and wildlife viewers in Alaska in 2011, resident hunters and wildlife viewers each spent more than $1 billion. Visiting wildlife viewers spent $1.2 billion, while visiting hunters added some $150 million. That spending generated more than 27,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in labor income."
    Actually if you look up the numbers RELEVANT to this issue, DoWC derives the majority of its funding from non-resident license sales and tag fees. It's about a 65% to 35% ratio in favor of the non-residents.

    Wildlife viewing tourists and summer-hire college kids from outside don't contribute a plug nickel to F&G management unless they buy a license. For that matter the bulk of what residents spend to hunt and fish, doesn't either.

    I'm going on a fly-in moose hunt this September. I'm going to sell some old stuff but I'm going to spend $5,600 on a new raft and all the doodads, $2,500 on air taxis to and from, and another grand or so on some gear upgrades, and food and incidentals. Hopefully there will be a need to spend several hundred more on taxidermy on top of the few hundred for processing the meat (yes, my choice).

    My license and tag fees? Let's see....there's $48 for my resident Hunt/Sport Fish combo and some free harvest tickets for moose, caribou and black bear. Since I'll be hunting in an intensive management unit I'll pick up a free brown bear tag, just in case. $48 to fish and hunt and possibly take a moose, a caribou, a wolf, a wolverine, a lynx, a few foxes, a black bear or two AND a brown bear. And I'll be sure to file a detailed report with the area biologist too, since when I'm done I'll have more first hand knowledge of the drainage than he does...

    So out of the 10 thousand bucks or so I'm going to lay out this year to finance my hunting habit, I'll be spending less than 50 for my official permission from the government.

    For those who suck at math: $50 out of $10,000 is one half of one percent of my total projected expenditure to hunt this year. (and that's not even factoring in water-fowling and a trip or two for spring bear)

    Boy, I sure do hope "they" drop the cost of licenses on us poor, besotted residents. I can barely afford to hunt anymore.
    If cave men had been trophy hunters the Wooly Mammoth would be alive today

  15. #435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mel Roe View Post
    It seems pretty clear that resident hunters spent 1 billion, resident wildlife viewers spent 1 billion, non resident wildlife viewers spent 1.2 billion and visiting hunters spent 150 million and this came directly from fish and game
    Sorry I misread your first statement.

  16. #436
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    [/I][/FONT][/COLOR]

    I can't let comment above by willphish stand ... we need to be clear on the facts and not pass this kind of incorrect information along.

    All resident and nonresident hunting license and tag fees go into the F&G general fund that is split between hunting and fishing revenues. So all your hunting license and tag fees end up with the Division of Wildlife Conservation, matched I might add, by 3:1 Pittman-Robertson federal funds.

    The legislature does not and cannot have anything to do with those funds.



    I apologize for the mistake. I looked back into it, and I was wrong. I was thinking of a time when the MatSu AC had a big discussion of misappropriation of licensing funds by the ADF&G. I misremembered, thinking it was legislative, but it was the Department that was in the wrong. They were using dedicated license funds to study nongame species that had nothing to do with hunting, so that they could receive some federal money. Their justification was that they needed some funding to be able to get the federal funding, so they improperly used the license fees, since the funds from that were available without legislative action. Our complaint worked, it had merit, and the practice of raiding the fund to pay for non hunting/fishing related studies was ceased. So just because fees we pay go into a dedicated fund within the Department to be used to fund hunting or fishing related items, does not mean that they will be used as required. That is why it always pays to watch the watchers.

  17. #437
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    [/I][/FONT][/COLOR] ... we need to be clear on the facts.....

    All resident and nonresident hunting license and tag fees go into the F&G general fund that is split between hunting and fishing revenues. So all your hunting license and tag fees end up with the Division of Wildlife Conservation, matched I might add, by 3:1 Pittman-Robertson federal funds.

    The legislature does not and cannot have anything to do with those funds.



    What about the proposed IM fees added to license's sales. Can that money be dedicated to go to DWC? Would those moneys be matched with PR/DJ funds?

    IM money can not be used to help manage sheep right?

    It seems like IM fees direct to DWC is not so clear cut as license and tag fees and maybe the legislature could grab those funds?

  18. #438
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsunami
    What about the proposed IM fees added to license's sales. Can that money be dedicated to go to DWC? Would those moneys be matched with PR/DJ funds?


    Intent of the bill is to have any "IM" fee, like a separate $10 fee you pay when you buy your license, go directly to DWC, with it being known that funding cannot be matched with federal P-R funds. So yes, I do believe that can be dedicated funding and that the legislature can't touch it. Of course it all depends on final language of the bill <grin>.

    Generally, the idea is to continue the general-fund state monies we have gotten from the legislature over the years via CIP and other sources, to fund the IM programs. Because with the budget crunch, those monies likely won't be available for a while.

    Already the Dept can't fund IM and survey and inventory work with what they have now. And the legislature has not always designated any GF monies to DWC that can be used for IM programs.

    As to the other question, since sheep aren't included in IM law, we can't direct IM funds towards sheep. At least that is my understanding.

    Bottom line is that right now Alaskan residents are looking at a $5 increase to their hunting license, plus a $10 IM fee if that compromise structure is adopted by the Finance committee. So fifteen measly bucks more per year for several black bears, a grizzly, a moose, five caribou, several deer, a Dall sheep ... and continued IM programs and survey and inventory work by the Dept along with hopefully more sheep research etc etc.

    I'm willing to pony up fifteen more bucks, even if I don't agree with all the IM programs. I still think we should have a resident tag fee for sheep as well.


  19. #439
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post

    Intent of the bill is to have any "IM" fee, like a separate $10 fee you pay when you buy your license, go directly to DWC, with it being known that funding cannot be matched with federal P-R funds. So yes, I do believe that can be dedicated funding and that the legislature can't touch it. Of course it all depends on final language of the bill <grin>.

    Generally, the idea is to continue the general-fund state monies we have gotten from the legislature over the years via CIP and other sources, to fund the IM programs. Because with the budget crunch, those monies likely won't be available for a while.

    Already the Dept can't fund IM and survey and inventory work with what they have now. And the legislature has not always designated any GF monies to DWC that can be used for IM programs.

    As to the other question, since sheep aren't included in IM law, we can't direct IM funds towards sheep. At least that is my understanding.

    Bottom line is that right now Alaskan residents are looking at a $5 increase to their hunting license, plus a $10 IM fee if that compromise structure is adopted by the Finance committee. So fifteen measly bucks more per year for several black bears, a grizzly, a moose, five caribou, several deer, a Dall sheep ... and continued IM programs and survey and inventory work by the Dept along with hopefully more sheep research etc etc.

    I'm willing to pony up fifteen more bucks, even if I don't agree with all the IM programs. I still think we should have a resident tag fee for sheep as well.

    [/COLOR]
    So the IM fee as proposed is not an optional fee but required to be purchased when a license is purchased?

    Will the BOG be required to prohibit non residents from hunting prey species in areas where IM is implemented?

  20. #440
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsunami
    So the IM fee as proposed is not an optional fee but required to be purchased when a license is purchased?

    Will the BOG be required to prohibit non residents from hunting prey species in areas where IM is implemented?


    On question 1, yes, the fee would be mandatory if that is actually incorporated into the bill.

    As to question 2, all I can tell you is what our org said to the legislature. We recommended that IF there is to be an IM fee, nonresidents are also required/mandated to purchase it when they buy their hunting license, because nonresidents benefit as well from IM programs.


Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •