Where does the F&G money go?
General Topic
Wondered if I could get your thoughts on some things. F&G agencies all over the west have been steadily raising fees for my lifetime. They have also added auction tags and such to raise more money. They do all this claiming it gives them more money to help wildlife.
My question to you is where is this funding going? I certainly don't see more law enforcement. It probably falls in the Forest Service in most spots, but I definitely don't see great guzzler maintenance in NM. Maybe the herds are in better shape. Not sure about that, but tags keep getting tougher to draw. Are they getting cut in their general budget and trying to make it up? Am I missing something?
I can't answer for western agencies, but in MN, our F&W departments rely almost solely on license revenue for operations. General fund dollars are not reliable and are dependent on fiscal health of the state in any given year. Operations budgets are susceptible to inflation just like any business. Every year it costs more to run the show. Another issue in MN is that big game license revenue subsidizes every form of wildlife management, including waterfowl and pheasant habitat, etc. I don't know if that is true out west or not, but it might be. So just because licenses are increasing, it doesn't mean hunting will be better.
This is a question best asked of your state fish and game agency. Often money from high dollar auction tags gets directed towards wildlife research projects.
I know one thing... as revenue from hunters goes up funding from the states is coming down. Maybe it evens out.
In CO, they spend a huge amount of money on mitigation of wildlife problems in the foothills-urban interface. Bears are especially a problem. They also do quite a bit of nongame species research, hatchery and dam work, etc. Hunters are very disappointed in the lack of prioritization on increasing hunting access, especially now that virtually every private ranch where door-knocking could gain access is now leased to outfitters.
One thing F&G agencies don't do is raise resident fees. I wish all state agencies wouldn't hamstring themselves with this practice. A modest increase of residents fees would really shore up some struggling agencies, but...... residents vote so it doesn't happen often.
Access programs, habitat programs, research programs, facilities, education, enforcement, and depredation. That pretty much eats it all up here in SD.
They are raising our resident fees in CO and a majority of sportsmen seemed to support it. They hadn't done that for many years and were threatening closures of areas and staff reductions if it didnt happen. So we don't get anything more, only maintaining status quo.
All I can speak to is Arizona. To start let me say that in Arizona the GF Department gets 0.00 dollars from the state general fund, they are pretty much self funded. There are a number of funding sources, Licence and tag sales are kind of like the bread and butter. Then there are federal DJ& PR funds . this money is derived by the feds through tax on sporing goods, then allocated back to the stats based on hunting license sales. DJ funds are used mainly for wildlife management, and PR are for fisheries management, lake improvement etc. Next is the Heritage fund, which supports a lot of non-game projects, and habitat programs, this fund is shared by State Parks, it's funded from the state lottery money. OHV funds derived from the OHV decal, goes specifically to OHV, projects, OHV enforcement, training and education. Watercraft fund is similar to the OHV fund, but specifically for boating enforcement etc. Action/raffle proceeds are held by the respective species groups who action the tags and allocated back to the Department for management of that specific species. Projects for this money are derived from the Department and the groups as well as through the Habitat Partnership Committees, which selects projects from the public, and other agencies. With the exception of License and tag sales, all of these other funding sources are dedicated funds and have restrictions on them as to how they can be used. The one good thing about Arizona is with the exception of the heritage funds, they are not open to theft but the legislature. That is just a quick synopsis, while it is not a perfect agency, I think it is much more fiscally responsible then many other state agencies.
“Where does the F&G money go?”
That swirling vortex called government bureaucracy.
Knee jerk reaction and a bit harsh. I donate to numerous F & G bureaucracies every year.
In WY the G&F budget relies almost totally on money from tags (with some coming in from Pitman/Robertson taxes). The legislature cut all State funding. They have also increased resident tag fees. Lots of money goes to non-game species and Threatened/Endangered species management. Grizzly bears eat up lots of dollars and bring no money to the department though they do bring some money to the state in the form of tourism.
That's great Lou. I wish that other state agencies would do the same. Having non residents as a cash cow may not always be a sure thing. I would willingly pay increases in my home state to help with budget issues.
Don't get me started, but it's probably a lot like when schools beg you to vote for their referendums, all in the name of "bettering our children's education", and then when the referendum passes the first thing they do is add onto the auditorium, buy the hockey brats all new shiny uniforms, or re-sod the football field! Little if any $ goes to actual "education".
DNR's much the same, more money means another fat cat office position and very little if any habitat improvement. If it happens I sure don't see it. (Minnesota)
Thanks for the comments so far. My suspicion was a lot of it goes towards non-hunting activities like endangered species and wildlife conflicts.
Wyoming Game and Fish gets about 60% of it's budget from license fees, with about 60% of that coming from NR.
NM , has had their legislature pull $500K from the Game dept every year, which in turn reduces the P R funds.
I don’t understand why the Wyoming high commanders up at the state capital can’t come up with a little law that takes a tiny portion of all that gas coal and oil tax revenue to help with a bit of funding directed to the fish and game.
Lord knows as well as anyone the impact all that activity has had on the habitat and such around the state.
I'll also add, that departments running only on license dollars may be a good thing. That way wildlife management is geared mainly toward sportspeople. If you get more general funding you have a whole other non-hunting constituency that may want a say in how game is managed or if it should be. So, while license increases can suck, and general fund dollars may keep license prices down some, it may come with future risks.
I suspect most of new mexicos money goes to printing landowner tags. New mexico is certainly not using it making "NO ATV" signs. Colorado is the one I wonder about the most. HUGE revenue there that I don't see a lot going back in. Most of the management I see in Colorado is by usfs not cpw
Way to much money is wasted in New Mexico and Arizona on Mexican Grey Wolfs. IMO.
Salaries and benefits, equipment like trucks and guns can be a big piece of the pie
Thanks for sharing your thoughts fellas. Can't help but feel like F&G offices keep finding ways to raise more money, but tags keep getting harder to come by and enforcement still seems virtually absent.
Yep, it seems as though even with fee increases there aren't more animals, particularly trophy animals. I guess they're just wasting it.
Our G&F spends all there money Importing mountain lions from out west and trying to pawn them off as “Florida panthers”
And, with respect to Colorado - (highest revenue generation in the US for hunting license sales).
Along with significant increases in resident license fees we get..
Continued UNLIMITED non-resident elk licensing resulting in significant hunter crowding in many OTC units and over harvest of elk in Eagle County and down in the SW corner.
No commitment to allow hunting on all State Trust Lands nor to lease private lands to decrease hunter crowding.
No commitments to increase game animal numbers.
No support against the radical anti-predator hunting or wolf introduction in the media or with the Legislature.
Interestingly, the reasons given for inceasing license fees were primarily for non-hunting related expenditures like dam maintenance and fish hatcheries.
Fishing licenses only increased by $8. Since we have to have multiple licenses for hunting each species, resident hunters get hit over and over yet still have to put up with unlimited non residents in most of the state.
Here's an interesting read...more about auction tags, but there are some references to how revenue is dispersed in a few different states.
Biologists, warden salaries, land purchases, staffing at wildlife offices, vehicles, equipment, pheasant and trout stocking. After all this I highly doubt they are able to profit much.
Treeline, imagine the howling if they required/sold separate "stamps" to catch different species of fish, like they do to us for hunting?
Good one Idyll.....too funny. Sad but most times true.
Sounds good to me Lou!
All over that!
$100 for Kokanee, $50 for trout, $50 for bass, $50 for walleye, $25 for stripers, $10 for catfish, $5 for perch, pike and carp could be free:-)
And add in special double priced premium limited tags for fishing the tailwaters!
Az. installs many water catchments/Elk Sharing with other states AND Wolf re-introduction,among other great thing such as outdoor activitesMarch 30-31 at Ben Avery shooting facility
Dirt:
I believe wolf projects in AZ are federally funded (US F&W). If state funds are used, for anything, I beleive they are reimbursed by the federal government? At least what the state G&F folks explained to me.
As I understand it here in CA, That's California, not Canada.
Our funds all go the general fund where the smart ones ( C- students, Hey they are really smart, Just look at our school rating) decide where it should be spent.
I know its not on roads, pre-emptive fire measures, or Wildlife.
I think they may be spending some of it on the delta smelt, Primarily so that they can prove it is useless so that they can get the Delta Tunnels project approved.
Oh Yeah, I heard that our BHS Auction tags are earmarked for the Sheep, only because Wild Sheep has their eye on it. Thank God for Wild Sheep.
Also, some of the CAL Pers Retirement dollars may be going overseas to that former state workers can "date" girls in Asia.
Again that is what I have heard through the grapevine. YMMV
“Scott, when I apply for a hunting license, how does Game and Fish use my application fee?” Your hunting license non-refundable fee application fee ($15 for nonresidents, $5 for residents) goes toward supporting wildlife by providing funding to pay for wildlife damage claims. Damage claim payments are paid to individuals, in accordance with state statutes and commission regulation, who experience confirmed damage caused by game birds, big game and trophy game to private property. An individual can claim actual damages to land, growing cultivated crops, extraordinary damage to grass, livestock, stored crops, seed crops, improvements and beehives and honey.
In order for landowners to receive damage payments they must allow hunting access to their property for the species causing the damage. They also must notify Game and Fish within 15 days of discovering the damage so Game and Fish can investigate, confirm and evaluate damages and associated compensation amount. Last year, Game and Fish paid about $1.165 million to individuals for big game, trophy game and game bird damages .
Thought this was interesting...straight from the Wyoming website.
