Fishing

MONEY!!!!!! MONEY !!!!!!!! M-O-N-E-Y ........MONEY!!!!!!

JEEZE they are so out of controle!!!!!!!!! check the link you will see why i am erked!!!!

http://www.localnews8.com/...story.asp?s=11936334


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

so when im driving down the road and see a herd of deer and pull over to look at them and a fish and game officer pulls up and checks to see if i paid my 10 dollars and i havnt boom there is a ticket!!!!!!! im done with this !@#$ we need to make a stand now our voices need to be heard! i am all for doing it by my self but help will get the cause much further!!!!


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

Wow, if this keeps up, there won't be too many people who can afford it! Maybe if they applied this to the people who are not already purchasing outdoor related licenses, but to tack it on to what so many are already paying is ridiculous!



The blog, have a look.
www.livingflylegacy.com

Yeah 20% of the people in this great state are already flippin the bill for everyone else. It's time the other users of the land start throwing down some $ for it. There should be a use stamp (TAX) required for people that don't carry a hunt/fish license.

charging for campground usage or charging for parking at boatramps completely understandable but charging some one to drive down a dirt road in bone and stop and look at a deer, or a moose, or even a wood pecker is not acceptable IMO i am so upset about this i can not sleep right now it is 2:30 in the morning and all i can do is research as much info on the internet as i can find on the subject. i am steamed!


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

F&G doesn’t have anything on their web site about this. Maybe they are just testing the waters to see how the public will react.

garuntee you that is what is happening. and if we throw a big enough fit about it right out of the gate it could be a long time till we hear about it again.


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

I sent an email to F&G asking what is up with this. I would recommend everyone else do the same. Flood them with emails to get this stopped!!!

i already sent one.


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

   What do they mean by conservation stamp? Conserve what? And are they saying that 20% of the people have fishing licenses while 100% of the population is using the land. So 1 person out of 5 is hunting or fishing. Its been a couple of years since I've been back there fishing , but I don't remember seeing that many hikers or bird watchers. The person from fish and game sounded more like a politician than a game warden.


"I think the bottom line comes down to when you have more, you can do more and since we all have ownership in this resource, let's all work together to help pay for it," said Jennifer Jackson, Idaho Fish and Game.


What more do they want to do with it, and let's all work together to pay for what? And then the reporter says the majority of people are for the stamp. The majority of how many people 10, 20. And did these people you asked know more about what the money if for than what they got from this news report?

its complete balderdash!!!!!!!


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

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

key phrase, " if they come out and say" i dont think they will it would make things to tight there wouldnt be enough loop holes for them to be able to right tickets for whatever their little hearts desire.


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

It seems to me that blaming the Fish and Game is somewhat unfair. The Idaho Legislature has always had it in for them, as have some former governors, including our present gov. I have not always completely understood the "demonizing" of the department. I do remember some years ago when legislators railed on the floor about there not getting their elk that year, and blamed it on mismanagement in the dept. The bottom line is that they are expected to manage all wildlife in the state with a woefully small budget. Absolutely not help from the state. They only have a few options to create revenue--licenses-and fewer people are hunting. Yes, it is unfair for sportsmen to carry the total load for non-game management, but, again, that should be addressed by our legislators. That isn't going to happen when we are in a bad financial period, and when we have a governor that espouses a "pay if you play" mentality. Mike

I really don't understand why as hunters/fishermen you are upset about this? Do you not think it's unfair for you to have to pay to manage areas that are used for free by others? (birders, bikers, hikers, etc.) As an outdoorsman I believe that it is our duty to give back to help out the resource and the things that we enjoy doing, and everyone that recreates should have to foot the bill. I understand if you are upset to tack an extra $10 onto your yearly hunting/fishing licenses, but I guarantee IF this is approved they will only charge this fee to those who don't buy licenses to hunt/fish.

I guess what it boils down to in my eyes is that everyone that uses public/state owned land should have to help give back to manage it, not just hunters and fishermen.

Normally I would be siding with you on this one, since I'm studying to be a fisheries biologist so I try to see it from both sides, but I have to say that I hope that "guarantee" holds true. As you and others have said I wouldn't mind if those who don't already have licenses got to share the financial burden of funding F&G. It's just getting to be too many things to have to worry about, and I'm even in favor of some of the extras. I can just picture it in the future, we'll be paying out the nose for a combo license then an extra who knows how much for the "all the extra crap you need to step out your front door" package
and by the way welcome to the forum !


www.bryanlikestofish.com

I wouldn't mind seeing something like a usage stamp if the cost were covered under the license cost for hunters and anglers. As it is, we're footing the bill for all the hikers, mountain bikers, birdwatchers, etc that don't need licenses. Right now they pay nothing, aside from parking/usage fees at certain locations.

Let them start contributing for their land use.

oh im sure that somebody at the top is helping them push the issue. by the way have you seen their office building or their trucks? how bout the brand new snow machines they have? mabey they will need new trucks and snow machines every 2 years.

scenario: i go fishing my wife doesnt fish but wants to go with me and sit on the bank or go for a ride in the boat (that i now have to put invasive species stickers on and so far the only place i have seen the county spend that money has been in people standing at the boatramp to make sure you have the sticker) she has to have the conservation license to do this? i dont like it.

and as far as blaming the fish and game im sure they are sitting in their nice office chairs right now going oh no please dont give us more money we cant do anything with it. oh look a new polaris rmk 900 ok give us the money." IMO


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

As for anadromous fisheries employees, they are mainly funded through Bonneville Dam, not license sales. I guess if you don't like it, leave it. Just don't complain when nothing is getting done in the sate and you see lower and lower fish returns. If hatcheries didn't release chinook and steelhead smolts, there wouldn't be an open fishing season in Idaho because you wouldn't have enough returning. You have to realize the F&G needs a lot of money to be ran sufficiently, and you're kidding yourself if you think it's employees are making a killing doing so.

As if the raises in tag and license fees in the last few years are not enough! I agree that the Fish and Game has a tough time with their budget, but come on. If they think this new fee is really going to help that much they are kidding themselves. Sounds like a management problem somewhere and they want to "fix" it by taking it out of our pockets. What a bunch of garbage.

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.

Chrome Junky,

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.

FR

I have a cabin four miles from shoup. I wonder if I have to pay a fee to go to my cabin?

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.


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

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')




Some things are better left alone, Even though, some feel they know better.
http://www.utahflydrifters.com/guides/profiles.htm

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.


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

doesent FOIA cover that since your a registered ID voter?





Have you read my Blog? I hear it's getting better!

http://redneckflyfishing.blogspot.com/

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.

Windriver

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.

http://www.myidahoweather.com

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.




Some things are better left alone, Even though, some feel they know better.
http://www.utahflydrifters.com/guides/profiles.htm

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.

That's actually only $100 flygoddess

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?




Some things are better left alone, Even though, some feel they know better.
http://www.utahflydrifters.com/guides/profiles.htm

if the price of non-res liscense's keeps going up the way they are, i would rather pay the ticket then buy one, seriously





Have you read my Blog? I hear it's getting better!

http://redneckflyfishing.blogspot.com/

Myself I think that this is a legislative issue.

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.

That my opinion anyway.

Now, putting it on Income tax is not a bad idea. That does reach the people they are looking to reach. The bird watchers, campers..etc.




Some things are better left alone, Even though, some feel they know better.
http://www.utahflydrifters.com/guides/profiles.htm

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?




Some things are better left alone, Even though, some feel they know better.
http://www.utahflydrifters.com/guides/profiles.htm

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




Some things are better left alone, Even though, some feel they know better.
http://www.utahflydrifters.com/guides/profiles.htm

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.


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

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.

http://www.state.gov/m/a/ips/


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

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




Some things are better left alone, Even though, some feel they know better.
http://www.utahflydrifters.com/guides/profiles.htm

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.


Duct tape is like the force. It has a dark side and light side and it holds the universe together.

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 $.




Some things are better left alone, Even though, some feel they know better.
http://www.utahflydrifters.com/guides/profiles.htm

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/.../index.php?board=2.0

http://www.refugeforums.com/...orumdisplay.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.


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

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.

i see what your meaning and it would take them changing limits and size possible but if they changed the regulations it could work.

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.


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

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!


"He was on the ground before we heard the shot!"

OH YEAH! WELL YOU &^%$% YOU GONNA TRY TO TELL ME *&&$%^&.

........sorry, I am in Utah right now


On a serious note......




RIGHT ON SAINTS!!!!!!!




Some things are better left alone, Even though, some feel they know better.
http://www.utahflydrifters.com/guides/profiles.htm

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.



My blog - check it out!
http://thepursuitoutdoors.com/

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/...0-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!




Some things are better left alone, Even though, some feel they know better.
http://www.utahflydrifters.com/guides/profiles.htm

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.


Duct tape is like the force. It has a dark side and light side and it holds the universe together.

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.

http://www.myidahoweather.com

exactly my point.


Duct tape is like the force. It has a dark side and light side and it holds the universe together.

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.




Some things are better left alone, Even though, some feel they know better.
http://www.utahflydrifters.com/guides/profiles.htm

They definitely need to clarify some details here.


Duct tape is like the force. It has a dark side and light side and it holds the universe together.

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.

A couple of points to clarify. As it is currently proposed the Conservation Permit would only be required on designated IDFG managed lands like WMA's and if you have a hunting, fishing or trapping license then you would NOT need a Conservation Permit.

This is the position of the Idaho Conservation Officer's Association:

Conservation License Position Statement
The Idaho Conservation Officer’s Association (ICOA) supports the idea of a conservation license requirement for non-hunting, fishing, or trapping license holders who use Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) administered lands at no other cost. The IDFG enforcement program plays an integral role in the maintenance and operations of Department managed lands through public education and regulation compliance.
The IDFG enforcement program is currently almost entirely funded by hunter’s and fishermen’s license dollars. A conservation license requirement (for non-hunting, fishing or trapping license holders) would create the need for public education and enforcement that conservation officers will be asked to perform in addition to their current duties. Sportsmen’s dollars should go to benefit game and fish programs that benefit sportsmen. Utilizing a portion of conservation license revenue for the IDFG enforcement program will protect sportsmen’s dollars by ensuring that those people using the resource pay for this program’s education and enforcement.
The role of the conservation officer is widely supported by the non-sporting public in part, because conservation officers provide many services that non-hunters or fishermen benefit from. Unfunded services include: investigating damages on wildlife management areas or access points, responding to wildlife complaints or injured wildlife, removing dead wildlife, and enforcing nongame regulations. Non-sportsmen should participate in funding wildlife conservation enforcement.
As the Idaho population has increased so has the recreational use of wildlife management areas and requests for services from the non-hunting or fishing public. Yet, the number of conservation officers has remained relatively unchanged. The result is a reduced amount of time that conservation officers spend on protecting game species for hunters and fishermen who currently pay almost all the bills.
A conservation license would create a mechanism for the non-hunting or fishing public to financially support the lands, programs, and services that they currently use and will continue to request in the future.

Great first post . Welcome aboard . Curt G.

I can get behind supporting the bill in this form.


Duct tape is like the force. It has a dark side and light side and it holds the universe together.

Fish and Game is losing revenue as more non-fishing and non-hunting residents are moving in and they are searching for ways to generate more money to help fund our fisheries and hunting. The more the PETA type move in, the less funds are going to be available. I find this as a good way to get them to help pay their share to perpetuate the fish and game in our state. Whether it will work or not, only time will tell.

I think you will find dwindling revenue is happening across our nation except maybe in Alaska, where fishing and hunting is still a way of life there. Unfortunately, the younger generation is not being raised in the fishing and hunting ethnic as we were.

Bob, you got a point. Having the bird watchers that seem to wander by while ducks are working the decoys at Fort Boise WMA pay 10 bucks a person for the priveledge is fair in my opinion.

Alaska is actually getting much less interest right now due to the economy. I have several friends that guide there, and the last few seasons have been tough. The AK Fish and Game actually layed off some C.O.s last year in the middle of the summer, which is unheard of. I think the economy is also affecting the number of licenses sold in Idaho too...