tag and license fees

sliverslinger · 12-24-2003, 03:38 PM

Who thought of raising up the fees? What were they thinking about when they did it? (padding their own pockets)There is no biological reason to raise the prices, we pay enough for everything as it is. Everytime I try to email them they wont answer my emails. I think that we have a corrupt government. I will not be buying a deer tag this year due to it is BUCK only for archery season. I hunt for meat. Just my .02

skein · 12-24-2003, 04:30 PM

I'm guilty, sliverslinger, if that's the word.

Last year there were quite a few of us that went to Salem while the state was staggering under budget problems and asked that fees be raised rather than cut biologists and enforcement personnel and wildlife areas. All we asked was that the extra revenue be directed into the state fish and game coffers rather than being subverted to the general fund.

At the meeting I attended, people in favor of increased fees filled not only the meeting room, but two overflow rooms as well - and even spilled out into the hallway. Support for the increases was almost universal among those folks.

We all hope they will spend the money on fish and game efforts that will pay off for all sportsmen.

As for the buck-only change in archery season, I don't think the increased fees had anything to do with that.

Skein

sliverslinger · 12-24-2003, 04:59 PM

we all know that they wont use the money for what they said it would be used for. I personally think that the extra money that they are getting from us avid fishermen and hunters should be used for the hatcheries to increase the salmon and steelhead runs.
As for the buck only season, I did not say that the fee increase caused this. I would just like to know where they got their logic to do such a thing. Its hard enough to get up close enough to get a doe let alone a buck.
I am just tired of paying extra for nothing. we always pay more and get less when dealing with the oregon fish and game dept. Look at the salmon and steelhead limits from 40 fish per year down to a total of 20 per year. And now we have to pay more for the tag to do so.

SLEDDER · 12-24-2003, 05:11 PM

It is why I am a Idaho resident, hunt in Idaho live in Oregon. I firmly believe the Oregon Govt. is full of greedy people that don't care about the common guy.

Bait O' Eggs · 12-24-2003, 05:27 PM

I voted to raise fees for hunting, and voted to implement a shellfish license.

It's a pay to play kind of thing.

I hadnt heard deer bow tags were going to be buck only. Thanks for the good news. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] I guess if you decide to hunt for meat you might have to hunt a little harder

Just take the money you would have spent hunting and go buy a beef, it will be cheaper, you will have more meat. Dont know why you are complaining, you are just after the meat anyway.

Save some money and go buy some meat, everybody wins. You will be happy your freezer is full, and the hunters that do hunt will be happy you arent competing in the woods with them.

2LEYS · 12-24-2003, 06:20 PM

The tag fee increase is minimal and I don't mind paying a little extra.

And the buck only tag? Good. Our game animals are not an unlimited resource. Just like timber. They need to be managed. If we let the timber companies cut anything and everything then eventually they will have out paced the regrowth process and we will run out of trees. And I am very pro logging.

With the increase in cougar and bear populations, our big game herds are decreasing. And when that happens we need to make changes. This is a good thing.

The DFW is not there to do whatever nessasary for you to take an animal. They are there to manage the animals. IMHO.

I think 20 salmon a year is plenty. How much meat do you get off of an average salmon? at least 10lbs? 20 fish gives you 200 plus pounds of meat a year. Blus 5 sturgeon plus 50 plus pounds from a deer and 200 pounds from an elk plus up to 4 bear, 7 ducks a day, 2 geese? a day, plus grouse, quail, chukar, tuna, halibut, bass, trout, walleye, cougar, turkey and whatever else.

All this for $125. Seems like a bargain if you get a quarter of your yearly allowance.

Spooney · 12-24-2003, 06:24 PM

I appreciate all the effort on both sides. I (like many) don't trust anyone with that much money. Cutting "Management" is my perpetual answer to keeping enough money for all the critical operations in this state.
As for the amount of money; I could do a lot more damage in 15 minutes thumbing through a Cabela's catalog. A carton of cigs is 35 bucks now days (glad I don't smoke).
The fact is, the ratio of hunting license with annual salary has been cut into a fraction. My grandpa used to pay @ 10 bucks to hunt back in the 30-40s when he used to earn about 10 bucks a day processing meat. I think 10 bucks back then would buy 350 bucks worth of shells today. The ratio cut is the same with autos and everything else on this planet worth anything.
"So I have to pay a day's wage to hunt and fish". OK. I'll be out there doing it.

Gun Rod Bow · 12-24-2003, 07:56 PM

I was ther with you in Salem Skein. I worried that the state government would bait and switch us and that is exactly what they did.

We said increase our fees "IF" you take that money out of the general fund and dedicate it to our wildlife resources and hatcheries.

Like you I agree with special interests paying for their interest.

The dirty dogs gave us the increase but kept the money in the GF

As far as buck only

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

If you kill a Doe then complain about lack of deer [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

Keep up the good fight guys. Merry Christmas.

sliverslinger · 12-24-2003, 08:59 PM

what go buy a beef and get the disease that is going to be killing all of us. Hell no!! I will go and get my elk and put in for a doe only tag. You cannot eat those dang horns anyway. well some of y'all do.

My money will not be spent on diseased meat.

why does our so called government lie to us all the time? answer that? GREED.
as far as the bear and cougar, they need to re-open it to hounds and then we can control the population. that is the only way. not by sending out some sissy biologist to take a head count of the animals and just say that they are decreasing in herd numbers, so lets limit the bowhunters.
Bowhunters cannot use all the things that would make hunting a little easier but rifle hunters can use scopes and can shoot the poor defensless animal at 500 yds, wheres the sport in that?
I have a list of things that would make bowhunting a little easier and more effective if anyone wants to know what they are.
merry christmas

sliverslinger · 12-24-2003, 09:11 PM

[ 12-24-2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: sliverslinger2001 ]

sliverslinger · 12-24-2003, 09:15 PM

one other thing, if you want to increase the herd numbers stop the slaughtering rifle hunters and make them try bowhunting for 5 years and you will see the numbers rise.
You all are quick to jump on me for what I am saying but you dont look at what you are doing to the animals also. I can bet most of you are rifle hunters and you hunt with a high powered rifle with a large zoom scope.
I also can bet that you have shot animals out to 500 yds with that gun. did you ever try to get within 30yds or just shoot when you seen it. Kind of gives you an unfair advantage over the animal doesnt it. Just food for thought and my .02

Bait O' Eggs · 12-24-2003, 10:05 PM

Theres always fruit and vegetables :tongue:

[ 12-29-2003, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

Snapset · 12-24-2003, 10:22 PM

my .02: I get a bargain from my license and tag fees. I spend enough time out there and bring home enough groceries, that I think it is financially worth it for me.That doesn't even take into account the satisfaction I get from stomping through the boonies. On the other hand, my wife might go fishing 4 or 5 times a year, a lot of people I know fish or hunt with similar frequency. They are the ones getting ripped off. No longer can a guy casually fish or hunt anymore, it is just too expensive. Hauling the kids down to the local gravel pit stocked with trout is just going to be un-affordable. My prediction is that license and tag sales are going to drop so far that the state will bring in even less money. If that is the case, I hope the state doesn't try to make up that money by raising fees again, because that is a vicious circle that means we all lose.

I much prefer funding DFW with the tax on fishing and hunting gear, that puts the financial burden more on those who use the resources the most. I guess that would be me.

2LEYS · 12-25-2003, 10:18 AM

You are awful quick to critisize rifle hunters. I think you better rethink your position. You shouldn't be critisizing other methods of legal hunting. Bow hunting is first on the anti's list of things to go.

Also, no one takes 500 yard shots. In the west most shots are under 200 yds.

You claim to be a meat hunter. If you are in it for the meat why don't you rifle hunt so you have a better chance? You bow hunt because of the challenge right? Then go for a buck. They are harder right?

billc_sbio · 12-25-2003, 01:11 PM

I'd be more in favor of seeing the License fees increased IF they were to keep the money in dedicated Wildlife or Fish funds instead of the General Fund.

So it's nice that lots of hunters and/or fishers went down to Salem to support the fee increase.

However...the ODF&W KNOWS exactly HOW those funds are designated and the very fact that they recommended them meant they knew that those funds would just be going into the General Fund, perhaps a "little" bit for them...but most of it will just get "evaporated" like lots of the GF money does!

You know I'd LIKE to trust the ODF&W, I've been involved in Fee Increase and added fees support for them before. However I notice that when THEY want support from the Sportsmen they usually get it for something they support. Often when it's the Sportmen that need support on something from the ODF&W, the agency pleads that they can't support something (or won't).

Unfortunately it seems to often be a one-way street and I've seen them bite the hand that feeds them more than once. Wish it weren't that way, but it is.

GutshotApe · 12-25-2003, 02:38 PM

ODFW's budget comes from 3 sources...last time I paid close attention about 50% was federal money (funds earmarked to run mitigation hatcheries and other federal programs carried out by ODFW...and from federal taxes on gear & tackle i.e. Pittman-Robertson & Dingell-Johnson funds); about 40% was license & tag fees; and something less than 10%...around 7%, I think it was...came from the state general fund (some of which is actually "pass thru" money i.e. commercial poundage fees paid to general fund and then given to ODFW from the general fund).

Unless the legislature changed things recently, all license & tag fee money still goes directly to ODFW and is the only "discretionary" funding the agency has.

What may have happened is when the legislature authorized increases in license & tag fees they may have simultaneously decreased the general fund contribution to ODFW's budget an equivalent amount...

A lot of people are critical of how ODFW operates and what they think happens to tag & license money...but the reality is the legislature controls the purse strings and essentially nothing happens at ODFW that the legislature doesn't know about or, more accurately, that the legislature doesn't specifically direct ODFW to do.

So don't be quite so critical of ODFW...they don't have as free a hand and may not be as culpable as many people think. If you have a beef about ODFW's financial situation take it up with your state representative or state senator...they're the ones that did it.

[ 12-25-2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

SLEDDER · 12-25-2003, 04:42 PM

I don't care if fees go up, no skin off my nose. I do care, however as to where that money goes.

fishin · 12-25-2003, 08:51 PM

2LEYS [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Sliverslinger, don't forget ODFW lost the choice on regulating bears and cougars with hounds because of the "popular" vote. ODFW lost the ability to control a big variable in deer populations. They use what they still have in their control to manage herd population and health.

If it is necessary, then I am in agreement with limiting archery harvest.

sliverslinger · 12-25-2003, 11:06 PM

2leys, I hunt for meat, that is why I bowhunt. I used to have a choice. now if I do I have to take home those dog gone antlers. they dont even make good soup. I wont buy a deer tag unless they change the regs. I will put in for a willamette tag though. at least I have a choice.
I know of people who live in tillamook who shoot elk at 500 yds. across a canyon, or even across a clearcut. real sportsman like. I stopped rifle hunting because of an elk slaughter that I witnessed during rifle season.

C-lice · 12-26-2003, 07:36 AM

As for the increse in license/tag fees, [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] . If I buy a sports pack for $125.00 (or whatever it is) it will cost me roughly $10.50 per month, or 35 cents a day. If the sportspack cost $100.00, it would cost me about $8.50 per month, or about 28 cents a day. If this amount makes it so I can hunt and fish, so be it. I'll pay the extra $.07 a day or $2.00 a month or whatever.

I believe that the ODFW staff, specifically the (sissy? where does that come from, Sliver?) biologists, know a hell of a lot more about the herds than the average hunter. If their motivation was greed, wouldn't they try to sell MORE tags? Wouldn't they let everybody shoot whatever they wanted in whatever quantities they wanted, as long as they bought their tags?

Why would greed motivate a siss...er, I mean, biologist, to recommend a certain number of tags? ODFW staff is paid the same regardless of the recommendations they submit. Would you prefer that they received bonuses if they recommended certain harvest figures? Or that they were fined if they recommended certain harvest figures?

Deer populations are down, and it's not because the biologists are sissies. I suppose that instead of making archery hunts buck-only they could have accomplished the same end harvest by taking away the general-season archery tag and making it a controlled hunt. But then the meat hunters would only get meat every few years. Or they could have shortened the season. But then a certain percentage of meat hunters wouldn't score, and the woods would be more crowded due to a shorter season. Of they could have closed certain areas. Or they could have not addressed the problem at all and let the herds decrease further. Or....?????

Like GSA said, if you want input into ODFW's decision making process re: the money end of things, you must go through your elected officials. I suppose that the same is true if for some reason you feel like a person who is not an educated, trained biologist should do population surveys and recommend harvest allocations. So write your representative, and explain to him/her why biologists shouldn't make these decisions. Actually, some of them might agree with you.

Mello-Yello · 12-26-2003, 08:43 AM

Wow, look at what I've missed out on the last couple days! :shocked:

SP2001, you're bringing a knife to a gunfight. You seem to be basing your facts on opinion...never a wise choice, certainly not in this forum.

Learn to care for game and you'll find that a buck can be just as tasty as a doe, particulary during archery season. Small bucks are every bit as easy to take as some dumb doe. In fact, my personal feelings have always been (and I'm a lifelong bowhunter).."Shooting does, where's the sport in that?".

chummer · 12-26-2003, 08:50 AM

If you're so worried about the current beef scare, Buy your own steer, and butcher it yourself! Simply avoid brain and spinal fluids. Oh, and by the way, WWF and Springer..... they're not real, they're actors. Sledder, can you clarify something for us? You're an Idaho resident but you live in Oregon????

[ 12-29-2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

tailchaser · 12-26-2003, 09:11 AM

This thread started good and is ending bad, no suprise but back to the original topic I was one of the few that opposed the fee hikes because I didn't do one thing. "Believe what a politician says." It's a sad sad deal but it's like taking candy from a baby for them. Everytime they need more money, they create a smokescreen. No one wanted to talk about raising tags because if ODFW or the state brought it up we'd pull our hair out and scream foul. However, if they threaten to close a few hatcheries, we jump up and down and offer to dig deeper into our pockets, which was on thier list from day one. Anytime they need money they throw the pitch about hatcheries out there and people respond. They do the same thing with schools. Threatening to cut teachers and schools, when it's really the secretary whos job is on the line with the janitor. But the public wouldn't pony up for that, so they don't mention it. I would've been for the increase but there was never a stipulation for where the money would go. Guess what they still don't have much more money and in a couple of years the hatcheries will still go unmaintained and face being closed.

I'll be one of the first people to help cops, hatcheries, and other wildlife issues and would gladly pay the increase if that's what it meant, but I'm not interested in paying for the state's useless ventures that cost us millions a year. Oh yeah, funny thing we purposed a 5 dollar increase for a hatchery and what did we get??? Give and inch and they take a mile.

Just my .02

tc

[ 12-26-2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: tailchaser ]

Prawnasorus · 12-26-2003, 09:35 AM

If you are so worried about the "poor defenseless animal", stop hunting with your bow during the rut. I have killed 7 elk with my scoped rifle in the last 18 years, they were from 25-100 yards,(most were 25-50) (none lost). The price increase sucks, but we all have choices, move to another state, Don't hunt, etc. If you do a state by state comparison , we are middle of the road as far as license and tag fees. As a bowhunter you will likely see more regs in the future because the number of bowhunters grows every year. You can certainly find better states to hunt, but you may not make a living there.

[ 12-29-2003, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

sliverslinger · 12-26-2003, 09:45 AM

INSTEAD OF LIMITING BOWHUNTERS DO AWAY WITH RIFLE SEASONS. THAT WOULD BRING BACK THE ANIMALS A BIT. MAKE THE DEER SEASON A 4 DAY HUNT ALSO, AND SEE HOW THE RIFLE HUNTERS WOULD LIKE THAT.
JUST MY .02

Straydog · 12-26-2003, 10:29 AM

I sit on a board that cut its budget last year and the result was 22 fewer teachers in our district's elementary schools. After the Feb. election I expect I will have to authorize pink slips for many more teachers.

Further, when our secretaries and janitors are also out of work
seem to care enough about teachers, janitor or secretaries to make the time to educate yourself to the facts. I assume it is because it is so much easier to keep repeating misinformation.

For all of the complainers, where were you during the several public meetings to discuss this increase in fishing and hunting fees? The public testimony in favor of the increase far outweighed those opposed.

Again, is it just that it is easier to sit back and complain and repeat the same worn out untruths than it is to actually become involved in the process and learn the truth?

[ 12-29-2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

Fishful Thinkin' · 12-27-2003, 09:13 PM

the answer isn't to give them more and more money to mismanage. That is my .02 worth. we think throwing more and more money into our government is the answer and we will reap the benefits. that is not true gents they will hoop and hollar and still want more threaten to close hatcheries do away with schools sports whatever it takes to get more and more money from the tax payers. Whats is enough for Oregon governemnt I'd guess about half of what you make. As far as pay for your play goes. This is our resource and it shouldn't be a rich mans sport. I myself make good money and am not willing to just throw it to our government to be mismanaged.

Swamp Puppy · 12-28-2003, 12:11 PM

what about all the so called "bowhunters" (i won't slag the people who are truly into the sport) who ride around in trucks all day and take 50+ yard snap shots at anything that happens to run across the road? are these people responsible hunters? why should they get the benefit of hunting doe/buck when everyone else is restricted to buck only? heck, i see more people out during general archery then i do during general rifle. it's about time they got some regs put on them.

[ 12-29-2003, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

Rauly · 12-28-2003, 01:38 PM

If this thread does not take a turn for the better it will end.

Rauly

Get Bit · 12-28-2003, 11:56 PM

I'm more than willing to pay more for my outdoor recreation. I would like to see it stay with ODFW however. I didn't have the time to get involved (too busy with other budget issues). I can't really complain too much unless I'm willing to get involved. Those folks that attend Salem meetings,send letters,emails,etc. and get invloved in the process: My hat is off to you! As far as schools go, there's no smokescreens going on Tailchaser. My district cut about 150 teachers this year. Class sizes are up to above 30 in the elementary schools and 40 in some high school situations. No librarians, less music teachers,less P.E. teachers, and less support staff for teachers. We cut big time! Next year looks worse!(-4.5 million over two years if the tax doesn't pass in Feb.) The anti-tax banter is really getting old ! We've got folks that don't like taxes, myself included, thats a given.The thing that's driving me crazy is that no one seems to have the guts to fix it: all they say is: "No new taxes!". What does that fix? Lets decide what programs need to be done a way with and cut! Now we have so many new state programs that suck money away. There probably is enough money in Salem. Who's willing to step up and prioritize programs and fix it?

Probably off topic a bit but this budget thing is crazy.

Get Bit

tailchaser · 12-29-2003, 08:30 AM

Actually Straydog, you're wrong also. I'm married to a schoolteacher, both her parents are retired teachers, my brother in law is a teacher and my family has been on the schoolboard for over 8 years. I state it from LOCAL experience and knowledge. Locally, threatening teachers makes everyone mad and able to pony up a little more. Once in a while a few get cut, but it could be avoided. It comes down to simple politics. They raised the rates on our tags across the board. Do you really think it saved that many hatcheries or people on the edge of a pinkslip? Nope. It saved things such as the gay community housing in Eugene and Portland that we pay over 600K for a piece, or womens crisis centers that are 120K for every one in a town. It might have even paid for that little bonus the state employees got? How many teachers or police jobs would that cover? A lot. Does it make you feel good that we pay health care to illegal aliens?? Throw in another couple HUNDRED MILLION for that one. Put that on the ballot. I know which one I'd vote for. The management of funds needs to be a lot better in our state. It's pretty simple what needs to be done but you can't have a coward in office with too many people trying to keep their federal programs open that don't cut it when compared to teachers and cops. The question is where do you want your money to go?

If the public got a printout of all the things that we pay taxes to support in our state I think there would be an absolute uproar. It was nothing more than bickering between these groups and thier reps in the capitol that no one wanted to give up. Therefore, no conclusions were given and now we have a tax raise!! I'm glad that took over a year to figure that one out. There's a reason why schools had so much money in the 80's and you never heard of the problems we have today. Too many people are sucking off the bottle that don't need to be there.

tc

[ 12-29-2003, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

Straydog · 12-29-2003, 09:02 AM

Tailchaser. I am on a School Board, know many teachers, have kids in school and was on the School District Budget Commitee.

Perhaps you have local issues that support your stance that the school board is hiding dollars and using teachers as their scape goats. As one that has "family" on the School Board, I am not sure in terms of your accusation that there is money for teachers but it is being spent elsewhere :whazzup:

However, I think you stated your position in terms of "they", the whole State. As a school board member that has spent many hours on our budget, I can tell you what you describe going on in your school district is not the crooked scenario we are dealing with in our school district.

It sounds to me like you need to clean up your school board, if what you proclaim is true.

[ 12-29-2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

tailchaser · 12-29-2003, 09:06 AM

I'm not saying the schoolboard is hiding dollars. They have the money that is passed down from the state. To save the teachers you have to get the money out of the hands of people that abuse your tax dollars. The next time you look at your paycheck and the taxes incurred think about how many free visits to the hospital you just paid to illegal aliens instead of to your teachers. And guess what? Your increase in tags pays for it also! It sure makes me feel fuzzy inside knowing I'm working for that.

tc

[ 12-29-2003, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

Straydog · 12-29-2003, 09:14 AM

If this is not saying teacher cuts are avoidable but used to make people mad and pay more taxes, just what is it saying??? By emphasizing "LOCAL", I have to assume it is your local Board that you are accusing of using teachers to raise taxes. I am certainly willing and able to be corrected. Did I misinterpret your words?

[ 12-29-2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

tailchaser · 12-29-2003, 09:53 AM

I can be accountable for them even when they only have to look up to see what I said, but you're making it easy on me I guess.

"Locally (what happens in my community for those who don't understand) when teachers are threatened by the state in cutting jobs people get mad. If you would like me to reword a few other things also I can do that.

It's taking candy from a baby through a politicians eyes. There are hundreds of things that can be on the chopping block for funds. Teaching and schools are only a couple. However, it's what gets the communities mad about and willing to pay for. Do you honestly think that a tax raise would go through for the transient house in Vale (circumstantial, but a possible example)??

The LOCAL community actually did a great thing in passing a school measure to give more to our LOCAL schools since the state wasn't bothering to pony up. It was a direct tax going towards our school and only that. It passed easily and took the local district out of poverty levels. It just goes to show people will give more when they know it directly helps what they want to see improve.

tc

[ 12-29-2003, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

Straydog · 12-29-2003, 10:02 AM

The State does not threaten to fire teachers, that is up to your local school district. The state has and is telling us there will be less money coming to the districts if the Surcharge is overturned, just as they did last year concerning the measure 28 taxing issue. When the district's funds are reduced by the state, the district decides where the cuts should come from. You said your district "cut a few (teachers), but that could be avoided".

The decision to cut teachers is a local decision, not a state decision.

[ 12-29-2003, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

Mello-Yello · 12-29-2003, 10:25 AM

Yep, things are pretty screwed up allright. However, I can think of nowhere I'd rather live, and if it means overpaying for some things, than so be it.

TheRogue · 12-29-2003, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mello-Yello:
Yep, things are pretty screwed up allright. However, I can think of nowhere I'd rather live, and if it means overpaying for some things, than so be it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Right on, Mello-Yello!!

Lifelong Oregonian, and proud of it!!

TR

Straydog · 12-29-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheRogue:
Originally posted by Mello-Yello:
Yep, things are pretty screwed up allright. However, I can think of nowhere I'd rather live, and if it means overpaying for some things, than so be it.
-------------------------------------------------Right on, Mello-Yello!!

Lifelong Oregonian, and proud of it!!

TR

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Mega Dittos to both of you!!

I like to think of the opportunity to live here my entire life like a second paycheck, except to me, it is "priceless".

[ 12-29-2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Hoosier Daddy · 12-29-2003, 10:49 AM

How do you figure that? Tag fees go to ODFW not to anyone else.

[ 12-29-2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

tailchaser · 12-29-2003, 10:59 AM

No your tag fees don't go to ODFW, they go to the general fund. It's divied up from there. Well Stray... I'm not going into the politics with you anymore. I am right in where I'm coming from in the fact that the state funding is what cuts the teachers jobs. With the lack of funding, there are no other options for a schoolboard. Honestly, what choices do you have? Lets see, cut schools expenditures, oh yeah that leads to cutting teachers because you manage one thing. TEACHERS. There is only real option. What's another option, close a school? Oh yeah, that means cutting teachers.

tc

[ 12-29-2003, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

tailchaser · 12-29-2003, 12:36 PM

I have one question for you. On one of your posts you mentioned after the Feb. election more teachers might have their pink slips..If you make the decision about cutting the teachers, then how is the state budget have anything to do with teachers loosing their jobs? Since of course you make that decision not the state and it has absolutely nothing that ties the two together. Which of course is the point I've been making. Go ahead and believe your side, I'll believe mine. I guess this is the reason we have new taxes on the way. No one can agree on anything. But to say that teachers being cut has nothing to do with the state funds, and you make that decision, then I'll ask why you made it? If it's yours to make. I agree you've cut out every other activity and the only thing left is teachers so remind me again how cutting more money out of your pocket "by the state" has nothing to do with cutting teachers?

About the other stuff you mentioned (traffic, etc...)since when did we get on that topic? Just for a little insight also to the near future is the states roads and bridges are about due for a major overhaul. Guess what that means? $$$$$$$$$$$ And where the tags/fees go? Come on, it's pretty simple there, that's public knowledge. Why do you think people are mad that not a single dime was earmarked like everyone was hoping for? And oh yes, the part where no guarantees were made about the one thing they were trying to save...Hatcheries!

tc

[ 12-29-2003, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

dla · 12-29-2003, 12:51 PM

Why the decline?

This is just the sales of general hunting and fishing licenses - doesn't include tags.

[ 12-29-2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: dla ]

Mello-Yello · 12-29-2003, 01:12 PM

Interesting chart dla. I'm thinking we might want to make this it's own topic.

Seems all we hear about anymore is overcrowding in the woods, for both rifle and archery. This chart would make one think that the woods should have fewer hunters. Could this be due to the apparent decline in hunters having to hunt in an even more decreasing space available? (more private land, closed areas, etc...)

:whazzup:

GutshotApe · 12-29-2003, 02:51 PM

That chart shows only general angling and general hunting license sales...to what about combination angling/hunting licenses?..and, how about one-day angling licenses? There was a big drop in one-day licenses back when ocean coho fishing was eliminated that put a crimp in ODFW's budget...however, this category may be making somewhat of a comeback now. But the point is, the chart doesn't tell the complete story.

And, tailchaser, license & tag revenue does go to ODFW, not into the general fund. I don't agree with SDog on many things...but he's right on that one.

dla · 12-29-2003, 03:31 PM

GutshotApe: The chart is taken from the ODFW website data and dumped into a spreadsheet. I haven't had the time or motivation to put up all the data. They separated out the combos since they are essentially just individual licenses.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/...formation.html

Rauly · 12-29-2003, 03:33 PM

Clean up you posts by 6:00pm 12/29/03 or I will and may have to lock the thread. You boys are having a tough time playing, within the AUP.

WOW... I apologize to all of you. We won't let this happen again I hope. Lets leave it on the LIG board

It won't be tolorated here.

If you have any questions about the editing, read the AUP. If you look close I even edited myself.

Rauly

[ 12-29-2003, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

Straydog · 12-29-2003, 11:16 PM

Again, let me share your words above. Since you use "they" in relation to hatcheries and schools, I am assuming "they" is the state. The problem is, "they" do not threathen to cut teachers, it is "we", the local boards that make those decisions.

In the past we have cut transportation, text book renewals, classified staff, extra curricular activities, classroom supplies AND teachers. I suspect we will do much of the same after February.

All I am trying to do is to keep you and others from spreading misinformation to 6,000 potential readers in terms of our schools and our budgets.

[ 12-29-2003, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]