|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
Comments on hunting license and tag fee increases
Posted by Michael Strahan on Dec 15 2005
Hi folks,
There's been some discussion of late regarding proposed big-game license and tag fee increases. It appears that things will remain status quo at least until the next legislative session for hunting, though the fishing increases are already in effect.
I thought it might be productive to open a discussion on the merits (or not) of these increases. I'll start by mentioning two things that I think are indicators that increases are probably not a bad idea.
1. ADFG offices are short-staffed. I don't know if you've experienced this, but in talking with ADFG employees, there is some frustration with not having enough people to perform the additional responsibilities that have fallen to them with increasing numbers of local and non-local hunters. I don't know if this is because the wages are too low to attract folks or if there is not enough money in the budget to meet hiring objectives.
2. Survey work isn't getting done. I remember when the first Governor's Permit was issued for Dall sheep a while back. At that time, the gentleman who ended up with the permit deliberately over-bid for the permit specifically intending the money to go for Dall sheep survey work, which had not been done for at least three years prior, if memory serves (and it rarely does in my case). The reason survey work wasn't (and isn't) happening is because there wasn't enough money in the budget. I don't want to go down the rabbit trail of what happened the next time someone tried to designate funds to ADFG through the permit process (I believe our illustrious legislature disallowed it, requiring all monies to go directly to the general fund), but the point is that research and survey work has been on one of several back burners for some time now. I believe most of us want current, quality data backing our hunting regulations. Currently it's my understanding that our seasons are set without using actual current survey data, but relying heavily on hunter harvest reports as an indicator of what's out there. I believe most biologists would have an issue with using data like that as a primary resource for setting season dates and harvest limits.
I think a case could be made that we should have enough money in the kitty through increased numbers of hunters, but costs have gone up at the same time, simply through inflation. I don't have my regulation booklets with me right now, but it's been a while since we've seen fee increases. Perhaps they are overdue? What's your take?
I know that there are a number of ADFG folks who read this site; I'd be very interested in your views on this. To the rest of us, I'd like to challenge you to treat these folks with respect. They often receive the blame for issues that have nothing to do with them, and they may not be comfortable posting here because they get jumped by some of us when they do. I know negative comments have been posted about some area biologists; if we'd like the benefit of their expertise in a place like this, we've got to treat them with respect. Nobody likes being attacked, especially when they're trying to help someone. I'm not telling you how to live your life, just suggesting a way we can encourage the exchange of good information without running folks off.
-Mike
Next: 850 Million Barron Dec 16 2005
 Message Thread:
- Comments on hunting license and tag fee increases Michael Strahan Dec 15 2005
|
