CA Pig Tags price increase

[surfdawggg]

Does anyone have the time or inclination (I have neither at the moment) to look at the GAO report to see exactly what those dollars are earmarked for? I for one, would be very interested.

 

[New Pig Hunter]

Jim Matthews just e-mailed his newsletter via Turner's Outdoorsman. Here are some excerpts of what Jim had to say.

"When hunters or fishermen would call me to whine about the cost of
licenses, tags and stamps, I would always tell them these fees to hunt and
fish in California were a bargain at twice the price. I still believe it --
even with the increases for next year announced by the Department of Fish
and Game this week.......
..... I like the license, stamp and tag fees and I think they should be more. A lot more. Maybe we'd weed out the people who don't truly appreciate our tremendous
public land hunting and fishing heritage.........
..... This year, you could buy a book of five tags for $8.75. Starting July 1, 2004, they will cost $15 each, a theoretical increase of nearly 900 percent......
If the fishing license fee increased around nine times, to $275, would
you buy one? I've purchased non-resident hunting licenses for more than that
and didn't get to use them as long or with as much success as my California
fishing license. I'd buy one in a heartbeat, and dream of what the DFG could
do with the extra dough."

 

[Shot]

Originally posted by New Pig Hunter@Dec 4 2003, 09:26 AM
and dream of what the DFG could do with the extra dough."

Thats the problem, if the DFG increase public land that is huntable I wouldn't mind paying the extra cash, but if nothing changes and we end up getting more closers of public land, then whats the point in paying extra money to DFG.

 

[Backcountry]

My fear is that any increased DFG revenue will go into the general fund and not directly benefit DFG. I don't know if this is true, or legal, but it makes me cringe to think that money I spend buying a pig tag next year might go towards "services" to help some crackhead bum with 9 kids. I guess I'm still bitter after 5 years of Gray Davis (and countless years by the legislature) giving everyone the shaft in the name of big government and social engineering.

Guess I woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning... how about a group hug and a round of kumbaya?

Cheers, Backcountry

 

[RIFLEMAN]

MikenSoCo and dreaminhogs,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Sorry, it's still a good deal to me. ask yourself how many hogs you kill a year? 15 bucks ain't gonna kill ya. This state is in bad shape, get used to it[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I'd have to agree with MikeNSoco how many pigs will you harvest in a year.[/b]

First of all, I reject your arguments on the notion that since people may not likely use a lot of tags, they should not oppose this outrageous increase in fees. It is VERY reminiscent of the flawed argument by anti-gun folks who say that since we don't need semi-automatic firearms, they should be banned. This is not an issue of pragmatism, but principle and legality.

Secondly, if you want to look at this issue solely on pragmatic terms, try doing so in someone else's shoes other than your own. There are many hunters (dog hunters especially) who use several books worth of tags. I bought 6 or 7 books last year.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I like the license, stamp and tag fees and I think they should be more. A lot more. Maybe we'd weed out the people who don't truly appreciate our tremendous public land hunting and fishing heritage.........[/b]

Spoken like a true elitist; are we to judge the measure of a person's love of hunting, fishing and trapping or their dedication to conservation of our natural resources largely by the amount of money they are willing or able to spend on these sporting pursuits?


Backcountry,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

My fear is that any increased DFG revenue will go into the general fund and not directly benefit DFG. I don't know if this is true, or legal, but it makes me cringe to think that money I spend buying a pig tag next year might go towards "services" to help some crackhead bum with 9 kids.[/b]

Unless they change the law, all monies generated by the sale of hog tags are to go directly into the management of hogs within the state. I can't remember the exact statute, but it is there in plain English.

Alas, when has the governement ever concerned itself with abiding by the law. This increase has all the signs of an attempt to help the state's financial woes. Otherwise, why the sudden need for a dramatic increase in hog management funds?

 

[Monsterbull]

Questions, questions, so many questions.

Aren't about 95% of all pigs killed in California come off private property? And aren't wild pigs considered a nuisance species whose elimination is encouraged by the DFG? So, of the 857% increase in the pig tag fee (which is a real increase, not "theoretical" as Jim Matthews comments) 95% of the revenue is coming from areas that are not actively managed by the DFG. If the number of pigs killed in the years to come remains the same, DFG pig tag revenues will go up dramatically (a minimum of 70%, the difference between $8.75 and $15) without them having to lift a finger on "pig management". So, how much money does the DFG expect to generate and what are they going to do with it? If 100% of all license and tag fees go directly to DFG operations (an assumption on my part) and those fees increase 7-10% per year, how is it they complain about cutting services because of budget cuts? More money comes in every year, but the budget goes down? Or if the revenues have decreased, is it because the sell fewer licenses and tags? I wonder why that would be so?.........Hmmm....

As for Jim Matthews. Wow, what an elitist statement, "....weed out the people who don't truly appreciate our tremendous public land hunting and fishing heritage...." Perhaps you may, perhaps you may not, but you might weed out some people can no longer afford to appreciate that heritage, even those of us unwashed public land hunters/fisherman who don't leave litter strewn about. Can anyone honestly say that over the years there has been an increase in the quality of the "hunting and fishing heritage" comensurate with the increase in costs? I, for one, cannot. Quite the opposite. Maybe if I could right off all my hunting and fishing expenses from my taxes like Jimbo, I would feel less inclined to complain.

 

[dreaminhogs]

Riffleman answer me this. With the increased fees what will the hunter that does not have access to private land (as you do) see in improvements. I respect your opinion regarding the amount of tags and I can say that it would disturb me as well if I was able to harvest the amount of animals you have. But correct me if I am wrong DFG does not put money into private property. So how will the hunter with no access to private land benefit from the increased fees.

 

[yotegetter]

This is F***ing ridiculous!!!!! Lets not sit on our arses and write to these people. Less talk and more action! Lets send some letters in!!! This is like $80 for 5 tags!!!!!

 

[VHRAM]

Im really surprized at mathews comments. Unfortunatley i dont have a big budget for hunting. its a luxury not a nessity (not spelled right).Ive got three kids from collage age thru elem. School in private schools that i pay for because the state cant get thier act togather in the public school systems. to me the increases are not worth the extra cost . They dont use the money to improve the programs so it will cost more for the same lousy opertunitys in this state.Im intrested to see what other increases we will have. To me the cost does make a differance. I dont mind paying more if i get something for the value , but a

lmost a 900% increase?????

 

[SaltonSeadog]

I don't hunt hogs, but may someday. I just happened by.
I just want to tell you all about one place our fees have helped. In the Imperial Valley, the Upland Stamp money has been used to provide many acres of upland habitat for free public use. It is a co-op deal between DFG and Wildlife Forever. (I think)
While I abhor the theft of dedicated funds, it is only fair to point out when something is done right.

 

[Cahunter]

you want to get more public land open, like Coe park. You need to enlist the help of the NRA and the California deer foundation. These groups are politcally active and have the knowledge and resorces to get things done in SAC.

 

[Backcountry]

Originally posted by SaltonSeadog@Dec 4 2003, 06:54 PM
I just want to tell you all about one place our fees have helped. In the Imperial Valley, the Upland Stamp money has been used to provide many acres of upland habitat for free public use. It is a co-op deal between DFG and Wildlife Forever. (I think)

Being a Ducks Unlimited member myself, it’s clear that a significant portion of the fees for the CA and Fed ducks stamps, and the CA upland bird stamp, goes towards habitat conservation and expanding (or bettering) select hunting opportunities.

Just this evening I was reading my December copy of the California Rifle and Pistol Association’s newsletter and found the following quote pertaining to the pig tag fee increase...

"None of the sportsman’s groups represented in the state capital felt that the increase in the fee for a wild pig tag was unreasonable and there was no opposition to it."

Many game species have hunter advocacy groups (e.g., DU, CA Deer Association, Pheasants Forever, National Wild Turkey Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation… I could go on and on…), but I can’t think of a wild pig hunting advocacy group. This is surely part of the reason pig hunters are getting this unwanted surprise next year.

Perhaps it’s time?

Backcountry

 

[huntducks]

Rifleman

WELL SAID MY MAN

Some of you have been so well brain washed by the democRATS that you feel opposing any fee hike. is unethical.

PAY MORE THROW MORE MONEY AT IT HAS TO GET BETTER

You won't get a dime more of hunting by the tag fee increase, they will just spend it on some other tree hugger program or to save some rare flea that kills pigs.

 

[SaltonSeadog]

Originally posted by Backcountry@Dec 4 2003, 07:18 PM
I can’t think of a wild pig hunting advocacy group. This is surely part of the reason pig hunters are getting this unwanted surprise next year.

Perhaps it’s time?

Backcountry

Why not? A Pig hunting Association is a good idea. Perhaps it is time.
I am not much of a joiner myself. Only CRPA, DU, Lifetime NRA, Lifetime hunting and fishing with bird priveleges. I could be missing something. Maybe "Hogswild Unlimited" A lot of people would hunt hogs if they knew someone who did.

 

[Cahunter]

thats good idea. Hog would be easy to intraduce to public lands beacuse as we all know the are very prolific breaders, and can live anywhere. You could start with cotten wood wild life area, its next to coe park so all the traped hogs could be taken right there.

 

[Mel Carter]

I tell you what, I would love to see an organization like the MDF or RMEF for HOGS. You would think someone whould have done it already, that would be a fun banquet to attend. I wonder how someone would go about getting something like that started? Maybe an annual magazine with stratagies, stories, pictures, stickers, patches and an annual banquet. This probably wouldn't be to difficult to get started, and if it took off there could be chapters throughout CA. Great Idea Backcountry! Ok, so who's going to take this and run with it? I'm willing to help out, I have two boys who love to hunt hogs!!.

 

[Backcountry]

Regarding a conservation organization devoted to better hog habitat, hog hunting, and hog hunting access, the main problem is that hogs in CA are non-native and overtly destructive, and that private landowners typically aren't keen on boosting hog populations, except maybe for the big ranches that generate a bit of guiding and/or trophy fees through hunting. I don't know how well a mission statement such as the following would go over; "The principal goal of California Hogs Unlimited is to improve California hog herds.". I can’t think of any other species in California who’s existence benefits almost solely hunters. Heck, even hippy tree-hugging PETA members don’t want to see more pigs roaming the state.

But, since I brought it up and several of you seconded the idea, the CA Deer Association is seems like a decent place to start looking for a conservation-oriented organizational model. Perhaps Hogs Unlimited (or whatever you want to call it) could work towards better access and/or more realistic hog control measures on both public and private lands that are being overrun with hogs. We all know PETA’s unrealistic plan of spaying, neutering and relocation just doesn’t work and is darned expensive (say, when was the last time any tree-hugger PETA member put up some cash to save a wetland or feed a starving Elk herd?). On the other hand, I’m not sure how to word my ideal of “realistic hog control” (i.e., “Stick a 4-blade Muzzy in ‘em!”) into a politically correct palatable mission statement.

Alas, I’m digressing…

the California Deer Association is a young, small organization (compared to DU) but have managed to do quite a bit of real work in a short amount of time. From their website...

California Deer Association is a non-profit, tax-exempt wildlife conservation organization whose principal goal is to improve our California deer herds and other wildlife through direct financial support for habitat improvement and research projects. Seventy-five percent of the net profit from fund-raising events will go to projects, all of which will be within California's borders.

http://caldeer.com/index.html

If nobody does it first, I'll talk to the guys that will be staffing their booth at the Sportsman's Expo in San Mateo next month and see what they suggest, plus ask around and see if a pro-hog organization doesn’t already exist. In the mean time, yawl check out that CA Deer Association’s website now, ya hear!

Cheers, Backcountry

p.s. I agree with Mel that if for no other reason, it would be a hell of a banquet!

 

[Speckmisser]

Interesting discussion. I said most of my piece in the Campfire Forum, but find that I'm most in agreement with Rifleman and others who oppose the increase on both philosophical AND pragmatic grounds.

To be sure, most of us won't finish a book of tags in a season. Personally, before I started paying to hunt private land, I pretty much ate my book of tags every year. But I don't think the fact that we don't ALL use the whole book of tags is the relevant point here. There are plenty of folks who go through several books a year.

The main point, at least in my mind, is that this is an astronomical increase to hunt an animal that wasn't even rated a "game animal" until a short few years ago. As has been stated, the DFG and many conservation groups want hunters to eradicate hogs, or at least curb their numbers. That was the reason for permitting unlimited harvest in the first place.

Tags and a nominal fee were introduced in order to manage the administrative costs involved in keeping population counts and harvest statistics that are necessary to tracking and monitoring the spread of the hog population. That was the argument that hunters accepted.

Jacking up the price of tags means that the sport hunting harvest will likely decrease, while the number of depredation permits will perforce increase. Illegal harvest will probably also increase, as farmers and their guests will continue to shoot them up on private property without benefit of tags or depredation permits. Enforcement costs will likely go up as well, to cope with property owners taking the law into their own hands.

Hunting guides and operations will likely feel the pinch, as folks will be less likely to do multiple trips each year.

It's a bad plan all around.

I am a little intrigued by the thought of a hog hunter advocacy organization. Of course, rather than a mission statement proposing improving the hog herds, it might be more of a mission of improving hog hunting opportunities and fellowship.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

dreaminhogs,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Riffleman answer me this. With the increased fees what will the hunter that does not have access to private land (as you do) see in improvements. I respect your opinion regarding the amount of tags and I can say that it would disturb me as well if I was able to harvest the amount of animals you have...So how will the hunter with no access to private land benefit from the increased fees.[/b]

I do not believe that the hunter who must hunt public property will see any discernable improvements to hunting opportunities that will result from the increase in fees...none of us will. As I said in my previous post, I believe that the increase is an effort to offset the financial problems our state is dealing with, not a means of improving hog hunting.

CADFG might legally get away with this increase (if it were to ever be challenged) by saying that the increase is necessary in order to provide for an adequate amount of enforcement of the hog hunting regulations. The question is, when the state recovers and life is good, will they reduce the fees back to nominal levels again? I wouldn't hold my breath...We are still paying a federal tax that was created to fund the Spanish-American War!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

But correct me if I am wrong DFG does not put money into private property.[/b]

Well, technically there are some funds that go into private property, namely the administrative costs of the PLM (Private Land Management) program, the new SHARE (Landowner Incentive) program and the purchase of private property for sportsmen opportunities.

Unless I am misinterpeting your post, it seems that by your tone, you are essentially seeing this issue from the same side I am. Otherwise, why the seemingly rhetorical questions about the enhancements (or lack thereof) to public hunting opportunities this fee increase will provide?

 

[Whoadog]

I was beginning to worry about you RIFLEMAN I thought you would jump right on this.

Brian