View Poll Results: Are you willing to pay for your Big Game Tags?

Voters
91. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, absolutely, we need F&G to rely on us for their budget non non-residents!!

    52 57.14%
  • Heck No, I want them to be free!

    39 42.86%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Residents Paying for Tags Poll!

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,297

    Default Residents Paying for Tags Poll!

    It seems like the issues involving non-residents and our states F&G budget go hand in hand. Sometimes even seems that the state is catering to non-residents to some degree. It would only make sense since most of F&Gs' finances come from non-resident licenses and tags. So my question is would we the resident hunters of Alaska be willing to pay for our tags to aid in F&G actually having some money to be able to do their job better and break their reliance on the non-res money. That is assuming in a perfect world that the money will actually be put to good use. I for one absolutely would be willing to pay for all my tags, I have long thought it was silly we dont.

  2. #2
    New member AKDSLDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska/Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    1,234

    Default

    Yes, I would be willing to pay for my tag's "ONLY, ONLY" if I knew the monies were going soley to F&G and to good use. I also believe the non-res. tags should be "increased" and must be acompanied by a "regesterd guide" for ANY big game in Alaska.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    1,094

    Question Agree

    Same: We already pay for licenses, but paying for a small fee for tags would be fine if it was guaranteed to go directly to management like yearly aerial surveys studies or something. But not to just increase salaries or to be diverted into other state programs as can happen.

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,297

    Default

    Its sad to believe that something like us paying for our tags is the only way for us to get some lobbying leverage at the big boy table. Alaska has 2 primary huge resources, the black stuff that comes out of the ground that makes our cars go varoom and the fish & wildlife, and it blows me away that none of the states budget goes towards F&G. That would explain why so many of the coveted draw tags are split 50/50 with res and non res hunters. Not many states make it that even between res and non res hunters.

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Again, if the monies generated were used for game management ( aireal survey's, field studies, ect.) only. Fish and Game is under funded and if it would make the difference between having the proper information gained from proper surveys and field studies to help F&G make informed decisions over guessing by using some "scientific model" then I would probably support it.

    I don't think it would be easy for them to garner support for it and it would most likely be complicated by the different user groups unique to Alaska but I do think most Alaskan's would benifit from it as well as the wildlife.

    I hate to give the govenment money, In this case though it might be money well spent. It might mean that I go in the field with only the tag(s) of my targeted quarry instead of the pile I usually carry, I may be willing to sacrifice that and a few bucksfor better management of our resources. Would have to see how it was presented.

    It is nice not to have to pay out the extra dollars for most of the tag's.

  6. #6
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    3,890

    Default OK If

    OK if the money goes to F&G.
    "Never again shall one generation of Veterans abandon another".
    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  7. #7
    Member Milo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,428

    Thumbs down Not now.

    When the state is enjoying a huge budget surplus due to high oil prices, we should not be implementing new taxes. Call it a "user fee" or whatever, it is just a tax. The state can certainly afford to appropriate more money to ADFG's budget right now. It is clearly not a priority with the state government.
    I would have no problem paying more to ADFG if the state needed the money. The current licensing fees for residents are a steal.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    I'll gladly pay for my tags! On one condition. The BOG as we know it disbands and Fish and game takes over managing our game herds!!!!

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    143

    Default Are Resident Tags Free?

    Some of the convsation gives me the impression that some resident tags are FREE? That is what Alaska Cub and a couple others have posted. How can that be? Not a bad deal if true.

  10. #10
    Member AKBighorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    It is true that harvest tags for the general season are free. Then there is the draw tags, these you have to pay for to apply. Think its $10 for each that you select. If you don't get it you have contributed to their fund.

    As for paying for tags. I would have to vote NO. Reason being I would have to assume that F&G's budgets are set up similar to State Parks. I once suggested that they raise the fees for camping annual passes rather than do away with them and was informed that it wouldn't do any good. Reason being that they wouldn't get the extra money, it goes into the States general fund. I could be wrong but even if you wanted to contribute you wouldn't be putting your money where you think its going.

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,297

    Default

    Well this is an interesting result so far. I would really like someone to enlighten me on how some things work. I understand that the F&G is solely funded by the monies they recieve for licenses and tags, no money is received from the state for F&G. Obviously mostly by non-residents must be paying the F&Gs' budget because we dont pay for our tags with the exception of a griz tag in a some units. So when and how does the resident who lives in Alaska have a voice in what goes on? I have heard of the corruption within the system first hand from several sources. This corruption that I speak of is basically where a biologist comes up with a viable plan and or theory on a given animals herd condtion in a given area and the BOG ignores the biologist completely. Then on the other hand I am told that the biologist dont have a clue because funding only allows them to do minimal studies due to lack of funds and manpower. Then I hear about all these large interest groups especially guides and groups like Bushrat is a member of. So my question is when if ever do we the people who live hear ever have a say in what goes on and what changes are taking places and do we really have the capability to influence any changes at all. This seems like F&G is the underground politics to me because we never hear about changes till they have happened. I hate to sound negative but the outdoor experiences I have in Alaska are the only reason I live here and its pretty frightening to lave the lower 48 freight train methods for hunting minimization and land control to be taking over up here too.

  12. #12

    Default fees

    As an advisory committee member, as far as I can understand, F&G doesn't receive any monies from the general budget at all. It is funds from non-residents, and probably some other federal funds (Robertson-Pittman??)

    It is a crying shame that Alaskans can't agree to pay $5 or even $10 for a tag. Those tags didn't grow on trees. It cost money to print, etc. I proposed to add a tag fee along with the license increase. I do agree that all money raised by fish and game should stay with fish and game and not into a general fund. Pretty sad that our state can't CONTRIBUTE a few million here and there to fund the F&G. We can fund about anything else known to man, but not one of the biggest resources we have. Almost as stupid as not selling our oil to Alaska refineries at a discounted rate, so we can have the cheapest gas in America. Makes no sense to me. jmo

  13. #13
    New member akhunter02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    682

    Default Dam Right

    truely a said state we are in.

  14. #14
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,288

    Default Here's how it works

    Here's a link to the 2005 ADFG budget and expenditures report that will answer a lot of questions:
    http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/...penditures.pdf

    I want to clarify something I said in the other thread about SB 170, the senate bill that was supposed to be about license and tag fee increases for ADFG.

    While I blame the Alaska Outdoor Council for lobbying for the drastic changes to our Fish and Game statutes that were eventually incorporated into this bill, which caused it to fail, and which prevented ADFG from getting the increases they sorely neeeded, AOC on the other hand lobbied to get general fund monies to ADFG last year.

    Generalizing here, ADFG does not normally receive much in the way of General Fund (GF) monies from the state. Check out the expenditures/funding graph on the link above and you'll note general fund monies going to ADFG in 2005.

    I want to enlighten everyone about why GF monies are not normally used in large amounts to fund ADFG, and why many pro-hunting orgs and hunters are afraid of this source of funding. If GF monies are used to fund ADFG, then non-hunters can well lobby that since "their" money is going to fund Fish and Game, that they want to see more wildlife viewing programs, less (or no) predator control, etc.

    I also don't believe in always throwing money at a problem, but ADFG really needs a license and tag-fee increase. It's been too long since the last increase, and inflation has prevented them from keeping pace. People wonder why some sheep areas go to draw now. In some cases, that's because area biologists have to err on the side of caution when they don't have the funds to do surveys, because that money is not available or is going into other programs in the state.

    Take note that predator control programs are not "free." Many are under the impression that since the "public" is doing the aerial control of wolves that it costs ADFG nothing. Nothing could be farther from the truth. So it's a balancing act. When we do extensive pred-control programs that require ADFG monitoring, aerial surveys, bear hair-snag dna samplings, that takes monies away from other areas, from sheep surveys, from habitat studies, from research projects.

    We need to all get on the same page the next legislative session to get ADFG the license and tag-fee increases they need and deserve without tying those increases to absurd mandates that go well beyond the IM law we already have. If groups like AOC and others continue to lobby for these mandates, once again ADFG and the org I co-chair will have to oppose the license and tag increases.

    Changing a budget bill so that the very department requesting the budget increase must oppose the bill on biological principles, is just plain wrong. We all lose in the end, whether it's sheep hunters that want to hunt in a particular area, or the very wildlife we all depend upon across the state.

  15. #15
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,645

    Default I hadn't thought of that, Mark-

    Mark,

    You made perhaps one of the strongest arguments so far. If ADFG were funded from the General Fund, they would create leverage that could later be used against hunters. As it is, hunters pay their way. I like it.

    What makes me uncomfortable is initiating tag fees. Hear me out on this. I'm not opposed to it, but I am somewhat uncomfortable, and here's why. Once they launch tag fees for residents, won't it be a simple matter to raise those fees later? I believe it will. I know that inflation has taken a big bite out of ADFG, and that many of their top biologists are bailing because they make more money working for the Feds. The place is a revolving door. But once the camel gets its nose under the tent flap...

    That said, I would be fine with tag fees, but I would want some stiff controls on how they are raised later (and they will be). I'm tired of being taxed to death for public services, with over 30% of my income gone before I ever see it. I'm working four months out of the year to pay the government and I'm tired of it! When is it enough?

    So I have a little of both sides here, I hope we can do something with this.

    Not overly impressed with Seekins, either, btw.

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  16. #16
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,645

    Default It's a public process-

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaCub View Post
    ...I would really like someone to enlighten me on how some things work....So when and how does the resident who lives in Alaska have a voice in what goes on? I have heard of the corruption within the system first hand from several sources....This seems like F&G is the underground politics to me because we never hear about changes till they have happened...
    Cub,

    All of us have an opportunity to be heard through the proposal process, which allows us to draft proposals, read the ones others have written, and sit in on the decision making and lobbying process. I'm not involved on that level, but the opportunity is certainly there.

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  17. #17
    Member Rod in Wasilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    um... Wasilla...
    Posts
    825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Here's a link to the 2005 ADFG budget and expenditures report that will answer a lot of questions:
    http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/...penditures.pdf
    That link does explain a lot. But nowhere in the report does it list license and/or tag fees as an income source for the Dep't of Fish and Game. There's lots of federal money, a little money from the State general fund, a little from private sources, and some from user fees at F&G operated shooting facilities.

    So my question is... Where does the license and tag money currently go, and would increasing it help F&G?
    Quote Originally Posted by northwestalska
    ... you canít tell stories about the adventures you wished you had done!

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Riverfront Alaska
    Posts
    210

    Default Bushrat is Right

    You do not want the general Fund contributing to F&G unless F&G is providing non hunters and non fishermen with services(search and rescue for non hunters and fishermen). It is their way of getting a foot in the door. We as hunters and fishermen have always paid our way to support wildlife programs. So we can proudly stand and say we are the ones who brought the buffalo and whitetail back from the brink of extinction. We are ones through groups like Wildlife Forever and Ducks Unlimited that have purchased land for wildlife. Our counterparts in the animal rights movement cannot make these claims because their money goes to lobbying to stop hunting. Case in point, during the bear referendum in Maine I did a lot of research on the Humane Society of the US and Friends of Animals. The only land worldwide that they have purchased (and mind you,most of it came from donations) is 60,000 acres. That is a miniscule when you look at states like PA that have over 4 millions acres of land bought(in one state !!!) though hunters dollars. Yet thier budget is over $70,000,000 a year!!! Thats right 70 million. They spent over a million just fighting our bear referendum in 2004.

    After our referendum victory here in Maine these groups managed to get their voices heard enough and now have seats at the fish and wildlife advisory table. Naturally the only discussion they bring up is curtailing hunting opportunities because they "are unfair or unethical". They even suggested having a canoe and kayak tag, or a hiking permit or even a bird watching permit so they can have a bigger voice at the table. They also asked for general fund money so they can also have a bigger say. You do not what to give them this freedom. A slightly higher fee for your license and a small fee for tags would go a long way in supporting your traditions. So long as the money stays with F&G.
    If you take the woods out of the woodsman you have nothing left but a man in the woods.

  19. #19
    Member stevelyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    I initially started to vote no. Having lived in rural Alaska for as long as I have, I believe increased fees and purchase of tags would place another undue burden on economically disadvantaged people.

    However after reading bushrat's post, it far more important to keep the animal rights/eco-nazis out of our business and in obscurity.

    So yes, I'd be willing to pay reasonable tag fees.
    Now what ?

  20. #20
    Member Mel Roe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kodiak
    Posts
    196

    Default budget surplus

    Before we jump to impose another fee on us what would throwing more money at F&G do? What needs to be done that is not getting done now and would paying for a tag make that happen? We should look to the lower 48. I grew up in Oregon and they pay for their tags but I don't really see where they have done as good of job or have any more resources for that money, only more beaurocracy. When the money comes in it goes into a general fund which will only be spent on something else like a new bridge going nowhere. I heard on the news yesterday that the state is going to have some $100 million dollars in surplus this year, maybe we should look there if more money is needed. Once the tax is imposed it will only grow and soon our state will be just like many other states that charge you a fee for everything you do.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •