June 5th & 6th - Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission Meeting

CombinationLicense · 06-02-2008, 05:46 PM

For anyone interested, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission is meeting this week on Thursday and Friday in Salem. The Thursday session is an "Energy and Water Development Workshop" and Friday the Commission will consider several fishing issues, Access and Habitat program issues, big game controlled hunt tag numbers and the ODFW staff's budget proposal.

The entire agenda can be viewed online HERE

For those specifically interested in the budget proposal here's some direct links:

Exhibit B: 2009-2011 AGENCY REQUEST BUDGET

The Commission will review and approve the Agency Request Budget (ARB) presented by staff.

Staff: Roy Elicker, Director
Laurie Byerly, Deputy Director of Administration
Public Testimony
Action: Approval

Attachments:

"CL"

BrianMaguire · 06-02-2008, 08:34 PM

Now going to be a $22 Turkey tag? C'mon, a Deer tag is now going to be $24. $160 Sport pac, that is up $55 from 2003. I won't be getting one of those.

The hunting lic. is now $27.00, that is 30% up from 2003.

I guess PERS is really worth it.

Old Soldier · 06-03-2008, 10:10 AM

Lets all comment to raise the other fees so we will stop subsidizing other programs with hunter and fishermen dollars. Also to get to work on increasing deer and elk number. To keep the frorensic lab and two additonal OSP officers for over east in the budget. Just to mention a few points. I guess all of you know they plan on allocating about 10% of the buck antelope tags to LOP. Some of you may want to send a letter on that point as well. I know the antelope hang out in fields due to lack of good forage on public land.

fish forever · 06-03-2008, 03:28 PM

I sent my letter in last week. I'm all for fair prices but if prices are going up 52% since 2003 (sportpac has gone from to $105 to $160 proposed) I'd like to know they are putting more resources back into our sport and working harder to increase our opportunities. I'm also tired of paying increased fees to support Nongame and nonsport fishing programs that the other 2/3 of Oregonians are enjoying for close to free.

I usually get the sportpac as a convenience but at $160 I wont anymore. I'll still fish and hunt just as much but I'll just buy the tags I use and draw. I dont think I'll be the only one either. The ODFW proposal doesnt really factor in the drop in demand and changes in behaviour that happens when a business raises prices.

Here's an excerpt of the letter I wrote:
-------------------------------------------------
Dear Chairperson Rae and ODFW Commission,

I urge you to NOT support the proposed 2010 ODFW fee increases for recreational hunters and anglers that will be presented to you this week.

In 2004 I testified in front of the commission in support of the hunting and fishing fee increases at a time of the state budget crisis. This time I do not support the fee increases and I hope you will not either.

My reasons for opposing this round of increases are:

- Declining opportunity and uncompetitive service levels: I would support the fee increases if opportunities and service levels were also increased. My observation is that both opportunity and service levels are on the decline in Oregon and not competitive with other Western states. There are fewer quality hunting tags, less access, and shorter and more limited fishing seasons every year. If you factor in the number of tags on accessible public land for deer and Elk - the problem is worse. (Tag number declines are obscured by the fact that many tags have shifted to 'private land only' hunts)...... Oregon is the only state I have been in the last 5 years where I cannot apply and buy my tag and licenses online even after several very expensive system upgrades.
- Unfair cost burden for Non-angling and Non-hunting programs and services: I object to anglers and fisherman paying more than thier fair share of Non recreational programs. OSP enforcement, ESA compliance, conservation policies, Commercial regulation and enforcement, nongame/nonsportfish wildlife Field Bios, habitat programs, public outreach and education programs, and managing sea lions are all services that benefit the public at large and they should share the burden. Dont balance the books on the declining good will of the minority recreational anglers and hunters.
- Cost: The staff proposal downplays the increased fees. My math shows the cumulative proposed fee increases since 2003 to be 54% relative to 2003 levels for the resident fishing and a salmon catch card ($36.25->$56), and a 52% increase for the Sportpac ($105->$160). These costs far exceed inflation and are significant enough to change people's behaviour. I think the ODFW has discounted the drop in revenue as casual participants decline to participate.

....My opposition is primarily for increases in recreational fees: hunting and fishing licenses, tags, and catch cards. I do feel that non-recreational and non consuming constituencies need to pay thier fair share of the costs of providing thier services (ie. commercial operations, game farms, non-recreational permits...).

Thank you for your consideration,

fish forever · 06-03-2008, 03:36 PM

Also,

Anyone that Bear hunts in SW Oregon for spring bear 722A should look at the 2009 season proposal.

I'm not sure if its good or bad, but it is really going to change how people apply for a tag and whether you'll get a Spring Bear preference point.

Basically they are looking at a 'limited quota general season' that is similar but not the same as the fall general seasons. If I read it right - If you buy your tag early before the controlled hunt deadline - you will get your tag but no preference points.
If you wait until after the controlled hunt results are out you'll get your preference points (or controlled hunt opportunity) but you may miss out on the chance to draw the SW Oregon tag if the quota fills.

It will be the end of 722A for a leftover/2nd tag opportunity too.

al

BrianMaguire · 06-03-2008, 07:49 PM

I think that many of us will opt out of the sport pac, I will, and because of that many less cougar tags will get sold. They are even going up. I got a cougar a couple of years ago but only as luck and that I had a tag, otherwise I would have had to pass.

fish forever · 06-04-2008, 09:34 AM

They should give away Cougar and fall Bear tags to anyone that buys an ELk or deer tag. I dont see the point of charging us more for those when the state is paying to have problem animals removed. I'd think they'd want more people holding tags not less.

There are a couple of states that let you 'Cross tag' - predators or general season game animals of lesser value. (Alaska comes to mind). ie. If you are holding a deer Tag in Alaska, you can use it to tag a black bear.

CombinationLicense · 06-04-2008, 10:13 AM

Some good points for sure fish forever - the "packet" item Summary of Town Hall Meetings pretty accurately reflects many opinions similar to yours. I attended the first "Town Hall" meeting in Clackamas and what I heard people say was: "We want something for our money this time - more game to hunt & fish to catch, more youth opportunities, better enforcement and (Cougar) predation control"! As I read through the summary of the other meetings, I wasn't surprised to see that the same sentiments were voiced at EVERY OTHER MEETING IN THE STATE.

I personally am not opposed to the fee increase IF the Commission and ODFW commit to addressing those issues - otherwise, it's NO WAY!

"CL"

Limbhanger · 06-04-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish forever

They should give away Cougar and fall Bear tags to anyone that buys an ELk or deer tag. I dont see the point of charging us more for those when the state is paying to have problem animals removed. I'd think they'd want more people holding tags not less.

There are a couple of states that let you 'Cross tag' - predators or general season game animals of lesser value. (Alaska comes to mind). ie. If you are holding a deer Tag in Alaska, you can use it to tag a black bear.

I dont think they should give anything away, but predator tag fee's definitely should not be increased. The cross over concept is interesting as well. What chaps me up is the Agent use bill 2971 was passed and signed by the Governor last fall. They need to stop being intimidated by the animals rights wing and proceed with reducing the cat population as they, the professional wildlife managers see fit. NOW!!

scoutdog5 · 06-04-2008, 11:22 PM

The short answer is that, assuming the license increases and Schedule C tag increases are adopted, those funds will do nothing more than replace funds lost due to lower opportunity. Here are the stats:

1998 Western Oregon Deer Hunters: 134,401
1998 Eastern Oregon Deer Hunters: 91,592
1998 Rocky Mountain Elk Hunters: 79,419

2006 Western Oregon Deer Hunters: 83,594
2006 Eastern Oregon Deer Hunters: 74,251
2006 Rocky Mountain Elk Hunters: 51,011

Although there has been an increase in Western Oregon/Cascade elk hunter numbers, mostly Cascade, those increases do not begin to offset the substantial losses in the other three species. There is no way to know how many of those lost hunters who did not buy a species tag also did not buy a hunting license, but at a minimum, the lost income to the department represented by these numbers is 2,000,000+ per year.

Given current doe/fawn and calf/cow ratios in many units, it is obvious that populations will continue to drecrease, and lower tag sales will inevitably follow. The best case scenario, these new funds will allow the department to maintain their current big game management program, which has been spectacularly unsuccessful in rebuilding big game populations. Without the increase, very serious cuts in local staffing, enforcement, trend surveys, etc will be required, and the decrease in populations will accelerate.

This budget proposal is not going to address the very serous problems our big game populations face, but what is the alternative? My understanding is the budget must be submitted to the Governor's office in the next few weeks, so there is really no time to develop alternatives.

One final point, all funds raised by the sale of wildlife licenses and tags remains in the wildlife budget, and by statute cannot be transferred to fishing programs. That is not really an issue, since virtually all of the state general fund, lottery and federal funds the department recieves are dedicated to the fishing side of the department.

Scoutdog

CombinationLicense · 06-05-2008, 09:16 AM

Good post scoutdog5, I'm curious if you ever got to meet with ODFW Director Elicker regarding your funding proposal and if so what was his take on it?

"CL"

scoutdog5 · 06-05-2008, 10:56 PM

I did have a meeting with Larry Cooper and Tom Thornton, two of the higher ups in the Wildlife Division. Had a good discussion, but my impression was that nothing would change regarding the budget proposal, which now appears to be the case.

Earlier this week I got an email from Ron Anglin, Wildlife Division Administrator, asking me to meet with Him and Director Elicker. We are meeting next Tuesday. No clue what the topic is, but I am certainly looking forward to it.

Scoutdog