IFish Fishing Forum banner
  • Are you passionate about fishing? Would you like to write about topics that interest you and get paid for it? Read all about it here!
1 - 20 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is exactlly why I do not support a fee increase :mad: and is why I did not go. No matter what you do there going to take the funds and put in where they want it Period.
:mad:

Most major sporting organizations have agreed to support higher hunting and fishing license fees, but only if the money went to wildlife programs such as salmon hatcheries and game officers.


Now, a proposal from Gov. Ted Kulongoski's office suggests using $5 million in higher license fees to pay for schools and other non-wildlife programs. That prompted angry hunters and anglers to pack a Capitol hearing room Thursday.


"They're stealing from one pot to put it in another," said Louis McMinds of Troutdale, who parked his pickup, boat and trailer on the Capitol Mall in protest.



(KGW File Photo)

Others used the words "robbery" and "betrayal" in testimony to a legislative panel that is stitching together a budget for Oregon's natural resource agencies.


Anglers were most upset. Under Kulongoski's proposal, a yearly fishing permit for residents would increase $10 to $29.75 and combined hunting and fishing "sportpacks" would go from $105 to $140, plus handling fees.


A previous proposal had been to increase fishing permits to $24.75 and the sportpack to $130, and use the money solely for wildlife programs.


The governor proposed no additional increases in regular hunting fees.


About 100 people showed up for the hearing. Most who spoke before the Ways and Means subcommittee said they could handle some increase in hunting and fishing fees, but many spoke out against moving funds out of fish and game budgets.


"We're all for it, as long as it stays with fishing and hunting," said John Barcroft, a hunter from Tillamook.


The chairman of the subcommittee, Sen. Ken Messerle, R-Coos Bay, eased some tensions when he told the group that the governor's budget proposal is merely a "suggestion" and that the committee's main interest is in the original proposal to increase fees that go directly into fish and game programs.


Kulongoski's proposed increases in license fees would raise about $15 million, and shift $5 million into the state's general fund.


"We needed to make a policy call relating to who should be funding state hatcheries," said Jim Myron, Kulongoski's adviser on fish issues.


"Rather than putting $5 million of general fund money into hatcheries," the governor wanted the money to go to more important programs, such as schools and public safety, Myron said. "Five million dollars is a pretty attractive chunk of change at this point in the budget negotiations."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,728 Posts
If it takes a $10 raise in my license, and half of it goes to schools, I can live with it if that's what it takes to keep the hatcheries open. I don't like the tactic, but it's also the reason I didn't vote for him for governor. It's just like the Oregon democrat leaders in recent years to hold something over our heads to get their way. Now, if they could get their own heads out of their......uh, the clouds?
 

·
Registered
Troller. Explorer, Marlin curious.
Joined
·
14,568 Posts
I think the message was recieved. Most everyone who spoke said that they were supportive of the license fee increase but not supportive of the general funding reduction suggested by Gov. Ted Kolungowski.

A few used words like theft and robbery to describe the transfer of monies from sportsmen willing to pay more to programs paid for by the general fund.

There is a front page article in Friday's Oregonian. Harry Esteve almost gets it right but fails to mention the connection between the Governors 'fish issues' advisor and Oregon Trout. Also not mentioned is the agenda of Mr. Myrons organization in regards to hatcheries.

"We needed to make a policy call relating to who should be funding state hatcheries." Quoting the newspaper article which is quoting Mr. Myron.

I bet .. the rest of that sentence goes ... and while deciding that policy we will further the ambitions of Oregon trout by closing the hatcheries by denying them funding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
when is it too much. How much are we willing to pay? If income tax revenue falls again are you willing to pay another 10 or even 20 bucks. I didn't vote for him ither and I don't support his scare tacktics. If it's come down to closing a few hatcheries, to save a dime for every dollar the economy will lose in revenue then it's a hard lesson they will have to learn. I can't belive our goverment is that incompotent. :hoboy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,949 Posts
question... does anyone know who audits the government? I mean, does anyone really know where any of these funds are going? Y'know, like the lottery $$? What programs do those $$ fund? (bet we'd all be surprised) Where were those funds originally supposed to go?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,569 Posts
The government audits the government, of course! (Secretary of State to be exact)

License fees for schools, no sorry that's stupid. Call your representatives. Or ... let them do "whatever"

[ 04-25-2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: lost_sailor ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Adequately funded schools are important. The point here though is that if we ask to be taxed to improve our hunting and fishing related budget and then they siphon off the money we are stuck with more taxes and no better situation. The original idea was to fix the sportspersons problems without being a burden to the general budget. NOW THIS WOULD BE SCREWING US!-Lem
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
Yes Geek, that is very important. But the State doesn't know how to spend the money they have, that is very clear, and that is why all the rigs were at the Capitol. I wanted to go but could not get out of work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,861 Posts
Geek,
At some point they are going to have to Trim the Fat in the public schools systems. There are to many administrators and other wasteful programs in our schools. The goverment is full of other wasteful things that can be cut. Ofdw proably has a few as well.
I will in no way support MY liscense and Tag Fee increases going to any where but hatcheries and OFDW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,127 Posts
This increase must not happen if the Governor thinks this is money he can appropriate for anything but hatcheries and game issues. There are no safeguards to keep him from doing as he wishes so this must be voted down. Write your reps and senators and just say NO. $20 is too much anyway!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,218 Posts
Two points that I've not seen made are:

1. Under the maximum proposal (lic. & tag = $59.75)we'd be experiencing a huge percentage increase - 65%. This will likely generate a huge backlash against ODFW by the hundreds-of-thousands of anglers who are not as informed as the good folks on this board.

2. The immediate ODFW funding crisis is caused by a TEMPORARY state budget shortfall. The license increases being proposed are PERMANENT. I would suggest a temporary levy (like schools use) or a temporary license surcharge to get us over this rough patch rather than a permanent increase.

Making ODFW TOTALLY dependant on license sales is bad financial strategy - anyone remember the salmon fishing crash of the early 1990's when license sales plummeted?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
WRO,

I agree there is no way fishing and hunting user fees should to anything other than fishing and hunting.

As for your school comments. Please try to be specific in your allegations. Our school district has cut something like 14 of the last 16 years. We are NOT heavy on administrators and fat. I am on the budget committee and about to become a board member. There may be schools and or districts that are fat but ours is not one of them. It is frustrating to read blanket accusations about fat in schools, please site specific instances rather than blanket statements.


The urban myths of school funding are tough to counter when you really need money on some areas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,110 Posts
WRO, I too would like to see this "fat" you are talking about. I have children in school and some relatives that are school teachers and I have yet to see this fat. The teachers that I know are having to pull money out of there pockets to buys class items at times. They also would like to some of this fat.

Your blanket statement is not fair if you can't back it up with some proof. Grant
 

·
Registered
Troller. Explorer, Marlin curious.
Joined
·
14,568 Posts
Thanks gofish for correctly identifying the wrongdoers here.

How would you like a guaranteed 8% increase in your pension fund every year? This was mandated by Union activity and collective bargaining by teachers and public employees unions. They get an 8% increase in pension fund every year and it is on the taxpayers to make it up, even if the stockmarket is in the tank. And 2% cost of living increases in benefits paid to current retirees every year?

It's not just schools either. PERS is part of every one of the 25% of all Oregon workers that are on the public *** . 25% of all people employed in Oregon work for the government.

I don't belong to a labor union. I damn sure did not give the state of Oregon tax money just to have a labor union decide where it will be spent.

No more tax increases. No sales tax. Take my license fee increase and spend it on ODFW, not the general fund.

Get a clue

Here we have a group of people (Oregon fishers and hunters) who are willing to spend more on thier hobby. The greedy politicians can't get that little fact. They see more money and they can only think about grabbing it.

BTW, they do not give a damn about what you think. It's just about the money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,917 Posts
This is the exact reason I didn't go for the idea when the thread was on here a couple of months ago. NEVER TRUST A POLITICIAN. Especially when there's money involved. The public came up with this idea to help a direct cause that we all love and needs our support in fishing and hunting. The big bucks were shown in front of the committee with a grand approval from the public. Well guess what. They have other adjenda's on thier minds from the feds and we just opened up a new idea for them. Unfortunately if all of this goes through, I'll be losing a lot of my interest in buying a fishing license and just go hunting more often. Very Very sad. I will never vote for this (if we even get the chance to now) until there is a direct tie to our funds produced and where it's used.

tc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,642 Posts
So, how many are going to face reality?? That things like education, public safety, etc., are more important than hatcheries to 90+ percent of people, and if that push comes to shove, that state hatchery money will disappear completely?? Make all the good arguments you want about local economies, return on the dollar, etc. It won't matter to a politician when it gets put up against care for the elderly, keeping gradeschool class sizes under 40, etc.

Good for those of you who stand on your laurels of "government waste" and "NO NEW TAXES or FEES".

Me, I guess I'm weak-willed. I'll continue to write and phone in my support for license increases across the board, while voicing my displeasure for pulling the $$ out of the backside of the budget. I can afford to pay the extra $5, $10, $20, whatever, and I will.

I do like garyk's idea of a temporary license surcharge, rather than a permanent fee increase, although I believe that even with the increase, we will still be around the average for licensing costs, while having some of the best angler opportunity in the lower 48.

my .02, flame away.

TR

[ 04-25-2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,861 Posts
I have no problems footing my share of the bill. I was not attempting to incense anyone with my previous comments. It just seems that goverment puts schools and police an the chopping block every time there is a problem to justify their actions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Hey Rogue, will you pay mine too since you have so much mone and you'll pay whatever the fee increase happens to be? :laugh: I do not support the fee increase because of the lack of garantee's about where our money will end up. They should be thinking of a more creative way to get more people to purchase fishing and hunting licenses. If you raise fee's to high people will give up the sport because of the cost and then your right back where you started with the lack of funding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Bigdog,

No matter what you do there going to take the funds and put in where they want it Period.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not factual...though it makes for a great rant <grin>.

You need to separate general funds vs. license fees.

License and tag fees do indeed go to the ODFW.

What the governor and legislators have done is cut ODFW's general fund budget, just like every other part of the state government.

If it's schools or ODFW, schools win. If you had come to Salem, you'd know that Sherwood School district had a big day lobbying since their schools got a disproportionate cut.

Fishermen can make up for the ODFW fisheries budget shortfall via our license and tag fees.

We are lucky we have that funding opportunity. Other special interests have to fight each other for general fund dollars, we can pay an extra $10 each and pay to play.

It's less than most of us spend on bait for one day of fishing.

Brion
 
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
Top