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!"