I am wondering how members feel about who should contribute to the state and federal fish and game agencies

Question:
Should fish and game agencies be financed only from hunters, or should non hunting tax payers have to contribute also? Please, coment only if you vote

Choices:
Fish and game gets funding only from hunters
fish and game gets funding from hunters and non hunting tax payers

 

Hunters and non-hunters alike should foot the bill. Non-hunters benefit from having enough game animals present to enjoy their outdoor activities to the fullest....even if it is an annual hike into the mountains with their kids. It's enjoyable for all except those, who in the moment, wreck their auto when they hit the animal. Besides, the anti's are always saying it's their game animals too. Remember, F&G agencies protect all animals and fish species, not just those that are hunted or fished for.

Hunters and fishmen only, but no one else should have a seat at the table when decisions are made.

I also voted that F&G should get funded only by hunters and fishermen.

It would make the F&G departments responsible to the hunters and fishermen.

However, if F&G are answering to non game utilizers (in the form of paying for nonconsumptive parks, etc.) then we need to get rid of all the specialized taxes on sportsmen to pay for what everyone else is using and telling us how to spend our (collective) money on it.

I really have a problem with the way some DNR's has been using money that predominantly came from hunting taxes being used to put up metro area nonhunting "fishing piers" and the game has been dwindling and major hunting areas being allowed to go dry- they are not acting in the best interests of those who pay for the department.

Strongly +1 for F&G for the above reasons.

Well, it is a close call in my mind. Everyone benefits from FG programs, protection, etc. so logically everyone should pay at least some part of the costs, however, after considering all the ramifications, I believe hunters and fisherman are better off if only hunters and fisherman paid the bill, so to speak, and no one else got a vote. BUT I'm not sure some if not a majority of the hunters and fisherman in some states wouldn't howl their objections to the increased fees that would almost certainly result. Unfortunately the hunters and fishermen scenario is not the way the real world, both political and legal, works today with environmental studies required, the ESA, the poor Ca Vultures eating lead (like I give a damn), etc so, my final answer is if everyone is going to have their finger in the pie anyway, then everyone should pay something but the hunters and fisherman should have the vast majority of control. Likely? No, but that's how it should be.

quote:

Originally posted by dr_dog_guy:
Hunters and fishmen only, but no one else should have a seat at the table when decisions are made.

My thoughts exactly! Here in Colorado the C.D.O.W. is funded strictly by hunter/fisherman dollars, Pittman-Roberts act, etc, no outside money is available, state or federal. However, management issues can and are taken to a public vote, just as the bear baiting issue was in the early 90's.

Pay to play, or don't get a ticket to the party!

quote:

Originally posted by dr_dog_guy:
Hunters and fishmen only, but no one else should have a seat at the table when decisions are made.

Absolutely!!!
Here in the formerly Golden state the general public and the county supervisors can over rule F&G on management decisions. That plus the fact that the pols in Sacramento raid the license fees in F&G and use them for their own pet projects is the main reason California is so F#$%^d up.
Too many mountain lions? Ban hunting.
Too many bears? Ban hunting
Too many does? Ban hunting
A housewife in in LA has as much say in wildlife management in this state as the paid biologists.

I voted for only hunters & fishermen. Up here, even those from the outside stick their noses in our fish & game management. All Fish & Feathers has to do is begin a policy of airplane hunting of wolves and the "fit hits the shan", if you get my drift from the preservationists & outside interests. I'm not saying I agree with everything F&G does, vis. the winter registration hunt (yet to be conducted) of the Porcupine caribou herd. But the biologists are the guys "making the big bucks" and in general, they should be listened to.
Bear in Fairbanks

Here in Arizona, all G&F $$ come from hunters/fishermen.....

If "WE" don't pay the full cost, then anti-hunting taxpayers will have a much easier time in banning all hunting.

I say the Fish and the Game management should be paid for by the hunters and fishermen. The management of Non game animals and Non game fish should be paid out of the general state fund and all tax payers should pay to take care of them. I am sick of paying for bats, frogs, bluebirds, and freeken WOLVES!!! Ron