Ok, the story of the warden and his two kids, give me a break. More people get laid of everyday then the DFG has employees. The reason why I get mad is because there are high paying jobs at DFG that do absolutly nothing, one person can do the job of 4 DFG jobs at the headquarter (I can't remember the positions), that where our money will go, not the poor warden with two kids.
- Thread starter pappy
- Start date
chap_dog48
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 105
I too am upset with the tag price issue. Mainly for my Dad I will explain. My Dad and I weighed the option of hunting in state this year for pigs or taking another annual Texas trips and the answer is another Texas hunt is in the works. As mentioned all you need is a Non-Res Lic in Texas. A flight into Laredo RD trip is $120 the rancher picks us up feeds us for the 3 days and it only cost $300 and you get 2 pigs and as many varmits as you want. Total for the trip lets say $450. But you are pretty much garanteed and you have fun without the hassel.
Back to California though, I am a Life Lic. Holder with the Big Game upgrade, so I am like Speck, I don't pay for the tags, I will get 5 for the rest of my life regardless of the cost, and last year I was informed on the fee raise and decided to get my three year old the same Life and Big game plan.
The state is already starting to have a problem with the pigs. It will get worse. Even in Texas where you can kill them all the time and as many as possible some counties are now offering a bounty on them $7.00 for each mathcing set of ears. One day Calif. will turn back to some sort of open hunt.
This is just my
Calif. Politics Suck
Back to California though, I am a Life Lic. Holder with the Big Game upgrade, so I am like Speck, I don't pay for the tags, I will get 5 for the rest of my life regardless of the cost, and last year I was informed on the fee raise and decided to get my three year old the same Life and Big game plan.
The state is already starting to have a problem with the pigs. It will get worse. Even in Texas where you can kill them all the time and as many as possible some counties are now offering a bounty on them $7.00 for each mathcing set of ears. One day Calif. will turn back to some sort of open hunt.
This is just my
Hire more wardens....that sounds like a line. My
is that it goes straight into the state treasury.
Yes, the size of the increase (and probable lack of necessity) are BS, but, let's get real, the lady at the counter is largely correct: It'll have a negligible impact on the quantity of licenses sold (mainly because the vast majority of hunters DON'T shoot a pig anyhow). {Everybody go back to your Econ 101 textbook and revisit "Price Elasticity of Demand." Even with less tickets potentially sold, it'll be a windfall for the treasury, since pig tags have an inelastic demand curve, right?}
It would've been interesting, though, to have sat in at the DFG meeting(s) re: the price increase. What were they thinking??
hire more wardens.....that's a good one....
Yes, the size of the increase (and probable lack of necessity) are BS, but, let's get real, the lady at the counter is largely correct: It'll have a negligible impact on the quantity of licenses sold (mainly because the vast majority of hunters DON'T shoot a pig anyhow). {Everybody go back to your Econ 101 textbook and revisit "Price Elasticity of Demand." Even with less tickets potentially sold, it'll be a windfall for the treasury, since pig tags have an inelastic demand curve, right?}
It would've been interesting, though, to have sat in at the DFG meeting(s) re: the price increase. What were they thinking??
California licenses have just gotten ridiculous. You pay $32.80 for a license that is only good for rabbits and some varmints.
You want to hunt upland birds, you need to buy a stamp.
You want to hunt waterfowl, you need to buy 2 stamps.
You want to hunt bobcats, you need to buy tags
You want to hunt deer, you need to buy tags.
Pigs, you need to buy tags.
Bear, you buy tags
Antelope, you buy a tag.
Bighorn Sheep, you buy a tag.
Elk, you buy a tag.
And then if your lucky enough to draw a elk, antelope, or bighorn tag, you pay tag fees you'd expect to pay if you were a non-resident.
You want to hunt upland birds, you need to buy a stamp.
You want to hunt waterfowl, you need to buy 2 stamps.
You want to hunt bobcats, you need to buy tags
You want to hunt deer, you need to buy tags.
Pigs, you need to buy tags.
Bear, you buy tags
Antelope, you buy a tag.
Bighorn Sheep, you buy a tag.
Elk, you buy a tag.
And then if your lucky enough to draw a elk, antelope, or bighorn tag, you pay tag fees you'd expect to pay if you were a non-resident.
easymoney
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 10,522
- Reaction score
- 101
It isn't about, the amount of money being charged, as I and most other hunters will pay anyway...
It's that the money regardless of which tags, fees or stamps, is supposed to go back to benefit the species that those fees are being charged for. Those fees were not originally intended to go into the general fund for use on any pet project the current DFG administration feels they want splurge on, (that they didn't budget for originally). Economics 101 professor, if you don't have the cash in your account don't buy something you can't pay for... And I sure don't see many improvements being made to our refuges, species, or habitat.
And by the way, I got close to getting my book of pig tags filled this past year...
It's that the money regardless of which tags, fees or stamps, is supposed to go back to benefit the species that those fees are being charged for. Those fees were not originally intended to go into the general fund for use on any pet project the current DFG administration feels they want splurge on, (that they didn't budget for originally). Economics 101 professor, if you don't have the cash in your account don't buy something you can't pay for... And I sure don't see many improvements being made to our refuges, species, or habitat.
And by the way, I got close to getting my book of pig tags filled this past year...
PIGIG
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,359
- Reaction score
- 0
between this post and the last ? how ever many have read about this increse we should all get on a bus and go to sacramento and have a little chit chat with a few people up there. may be a couple of hundred people in there face might just might get some attention. hell i'll drive pay for gas and chip in for food
Oh, did game cops' salaries go up 927%?Originally posted by MikenSoCo@Sep 3 2004, 07:28 PM
Nobody said hire more wardens, just keep the ones we've got. re read the post professor
PS The extra dough is going to pay for those really beneficial social welfare programs Kali is so well known for regardless of what the original intent was.
boarrunner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2001
- Messages
- 166
- Reaction score
- 0
I think what motivated it is the fact that most people would by a book of 5 and only turn in one if any.
I wish I would of Bought my lifetime license last year when I could of got the sportmans for nearly the same price as the hunting costs this year.
I know wish in one hand..............
I wish I would of Bought my lifetime license last year when I could of got the sportmans for nearly the same price as the hunting costs this year.
I know wish in one hand..............
Zippy the Pinhead
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 0
As a Math instructor, I have to set you all straight. The old pig tag booklet was $8.75; the current equivalent is five individual pig tags @ $15.75 ea., for a total of $78.75.
The increase in price is $78.75 - $8.75 = $70; the percent increase is $70/$8.75 = 8, or 800%. Thus, the current pricing scheme represents an 800% increase over the old scheme.
$78.75/$8.75 = 9, or 900%; you can say that the new pricing scheme is 900% of what the old pricing scheme was. But you cannot say that the increase was 900%; that is incorrect.
You ought to take a look at the statistics generated by the Franchise Tax Board here in California. The state has a very "progressive" tax system, which is basically a euphemism meaning that the state goes out of its way to get most of its tax income from the "rich."
See:
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutftb/annrpt/2002/2002ar.pdf
In particular, page 134/172 of the file.
Out of the 13.6 million returns filed with the FTB for the 2001 tax year, 9.2 million had an AGI of $50K/year or less. 9.2 million out of 13.6 million is 68% of the returns filed. The percentage of the tax paid by those 9.2 million returns was a little less than 7%. On the other hand, there were around 1.5 million returns filed with an AGI of $100K/year or more. That's about 11% of the returns filed. Those taxpayers paid nearly 75% of all the income tax collected by the FTB. Not to make too fine a point of it, but the top 3% of returns, in terms of AGI (>$200K/year), paid nearly 52% of the personal income tax collected by the FTB in 2001.
Why do we care? To put it simply, in 2001 the state got almost 58% of its general fund revenue from personal income tax. Nearly half of that money-- about 25% of the states total revenue-- comes from the personal income tax paid by around 370,000 Californians with an AGI of $200K/year or more. In other words, if these folks have a bad year, financially speaking, so will the state.
Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more for pig tags in return for a more "regressive" tax system. But I'd also like to get more bang for my buck from the DFG. Their annual budget is around $270 million, give or take. Of that, they spend 40+ % on something they describe as "Biodiversity Conservation Program," whatever that is. Only around 15% of their budget is devoted directly to hunting & fishing. The percentage of their funding that comes from license and permit/tag sales is harder to find-- maybe some of you know the figure-- but I think it is safe to say that they spend far less on hunting & fishing than they take in from hunters and fishermen.
The increase in price is $78.75 - $8.75 = $70; the percent increase is $70/$8.75 = 8, or 800%. Thus, the current pricing scheme represents an 800% increase over the old scheme.
$78.75/$8.75 = 9, or 900%; you can say that the new pricing scheme is 900% of what the old pricing scheme was. But you cannot say that the increase was 900%; that is incorrect.
You ought to take a look at the statistics generated by the Franchise Tax Board here in California. The state has a very "progressive" tax system, which is basically a euphemism meaning that the state goes out of its way to get most of its tax income from the "rich."
See:
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutftb/annrpt/2002/2002ar.pdf
In particular, page 134/172 of the file.
Out of the 13.6 million returns filed with the FTB for the 2001 tax year, 9.2 million had an AGI of $50K/year or less. 9.2 million out of 13.6 million is 68% of the returns filed. The percentage of the tax paid by those 9.2 million returns was a little less than 7%. On the other hand, there were around 1.5 million returns filed with an AGI of $100K/year or more. That's about 11% of the returns filed. Those taxpayers paid nearly 75% of all the income tax collected by the FTB. Not to make too fine a point of it, but the top 3% of returns, in terms of AGI (>$200K/year), paid nearly 52% of the personal income tax collected by the FTB in 2001.
Why do we care? To put it simply, in 2001 the state got almost 58% of its general fund revenue from personal income tax. Nearly half of that money-- about 25% of the states total revenue-- comes from the personal income tax paid by around 370,000 Californians with an AGI of $200K/year or more. In other words, if these folks have a bad year, financially speaking, so will the state.
Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more for pig tags in return for a more "regressive" tax system. But I'd also like to get more bang for my buck from the DFG. Their annual budget is around $270 million, give or take. Of that, they spend 40+ % on something they describe as "Biodiversity Conservation Program," whatever that is. Only around 15% of their budget is devoted directly to hunting & fishing. The percentage of their funding that comes from license and permit/tag sales is harder to find-- maybe some of you know the figure-- but I think it is safe to say that they spend far less on hunting & fishing than they take in from hunters and fishermen.
I'm against the whole user-fee approach to public resources --- but how the hell to you blame these increases on 'liberals' when the fees are part of the whole privatization/user fee/regressive tax philosophy of the right? It isn't just hunters getting nickle-and-dimed by regressive fees. I usually assume that when hunters talk about 'liberals' they mean urban folks who don't like guns. I guess cultural identity trumps everything else Or maybe there really are a lot of politically right-wing hunters. I seem to run into the stereotype more on the web than in person -- I hunt (on public land exclusively) with some pretty liberal, in no way rich, anti-regressive tax, responsible hunters.
As far as the pig tag increase, it is huge as far as percent of previous tag cost. Its impact on percent increase per hunter per pig taken will likely be minor (at least for me and my 1-2 pigs/year take). On the other hand, I'm a lot more upset about fee demo and the other privatization plans pushed by the ARC and the right (including plenty of right-leaning Democrats).
As far as the pig tag increase, it is huge as far as percent of previous tag cost. Its impact on percent increase per hunter per pig taken will likely be minor (at least for me and my 1-2 pigs/year take). On the other hand, I'm a lot more upset about fee demo and the other privatization plans pushed by the ARC and the right (including plenty of right-leaning Democrats).
In principle, I don't mind the idea of user fees directing a program's cost to those who utilize that resource; however, user fees are like a see-saw, i.e., by employing user fees, the government is supposed to LOWER the general tax burden for non-users. Unfortunately, that's not what happens in practice. The increased "user fee" is actually just a way to supplement the govt's treasury, as the general tax burden doesn't go down. The Kali example of pig tag increase is case in point.
MikenSoCo,
You and I have gone round and round on this issue since it first appeared on the radar. I will briefly summarize my objections to the increase, but will try to avoid a lengthy reply like I gave in previous discussions...
1. It is a violation of Fish and Game code to use monies generated from the sale of hog tags for purposes other than hog management. I sincerely doubt that the cost of managing hogs is 900% higher than it was a year ago. How coincidental it is that the cost of the tags increased so dramatically during a time when the state is roughly $40 billion in debt!
2. To attempt to manage the wild hog as a big game species in California illustrates a relative disregard for the native flora and fauna of this state. The animal needs no management in order to flourish, let alone, survive. The powers that be see this animal not as a threat, but as so many have said, a cash cow to be maintained in perpetuity. Native wildlife be damned!
3. Ecologically and biologically speaking, hogs do not need the protection that other species do in order to prosper. Therefore, protecting the resource should not be a priority for the already overburdened force of wardens. As such, the DFG should find other ways to support the wardens in order to remain in compliance with the aforemention reason number 1.
4. The unfortunate habit of government is to continue to demand more and more from its tax base. Rather than learning how to better budget their revenue, they force an increase in that revenue. Just because I want to go on a reckless spending spree with my paycheck and don't leave myself enough for "food, the mortgage, and shoes for the kids," doesn't mean I get to demand a pay raise from my boss.
DFG needs a significant overhaul in order to appropriate a reasonable fee structure. One way that immediately comes to mind is to reclassify their fines so that they are infractions. This will return the money to the agency rather than sending it to the General Fund.
5. You assume that the increase won't hurt anyone financially, but you fail to see this issue from other people's shoes. Those who are dedicated hog hunters who use dogs catch several dozen hogs a year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I keep a hunting journal, so I can answer your question exactly...
2003 - 27 (I didn't hunt hogs until April 17, as I was waiting for my protective dog gear to arrive.)
2002 - 50 (+/- 75% killed; Lost my truck and nearly lost 3 dogs trying to attain a goal of 50/yr.)
2001 - 46 ( +/-75% killed; Hogs (sows, small boars) released when safe and practical to do so.)
2000 - 48 (+/-75% killed; My catchdog was killed, making it more difficult to release hogs alive.)
1999 - 41 (+/-50% killed; I killed enough to keep meat in the freezer for anyone who wanted it.)
1998 - 37 (100% killed; I could hardly eat or give it all away; this prompted me to get a catchdog.)
Unless I significantly start "farming out" my "services" by having someone with me every time, this increase will cost me a damn fortune.
You and I have gone round and round on this issue since it first appeared on the radar. I will briefly summarize my objections to the increase, but will try to avoid a lengthy reply like I gave in previous discussions...
1. It is a violation of Fish and Game code to use monies generated from the sale of hog tags for purposes other than hog management. I sincerely doubt that the cost of managing hogs is 900% higher than it was a year ago. How coincidental it is that the cost of the tags increased so dramatically during a time when the state is roughly $40 billion in debt!
2. To attempt to manage the wild hog as a big game species in California illustrates a relative disregard for the native flora and fauna of this state. The animal needs no management in order to flourish, let alone, survive. The powers that be see this animal not as a threat, but as so many have said, a cash cow to be maintained in perpetuity. Native wildlife be damned!
3. Ecologically and biologically speaking, hogs do not need the protection that other species do in order to prosper. Therefore, protecting the resource should not be a priority for the already overburdened force of wardens. As such, the DFG should find other ways to support the wardens in order to remain in compliance with the aforemention reason number 1.
4. The unfortunate habit of government is to continue to demand more and more from its tax base. Rather than learning how to better budget their revenue, they force an increase in that revenue. Just because I want to go on a reckless spending spree with my paycheck and don't leave myself enough for "food, the mortgage, and shoes for the kids," doesn't mean I get to demand a pay raise from my boss.
DFG needs a significant overhaul in order to appropriate a reasonable fee structure. One way that immediately comes to mind is to reclassify their fines so that they are infractions. This will return the money to the agency rather than sending it to the General Fund.
5. You assume that the increase won't hurt anyone financially, but you fail to see this issue from other people's shoes. Those who are dedicated hog hunters who use dogs catch several dozen hogs a year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I keep a hunting journal, so I can answer your question exactly...
2003 - 27 (I didn't hunt hogs until April 17, as I was waiting for my protective dog gear to arrive.)
2002 - 50 (+/- 75% killed; Lost my truck and nearly lost 3 dogs trying to attain a goal of 50/yr.)
2001 - 46 ( +/-75% killed; Hogs (sows, small boars) released when safe and practical to do so.)
2000 - 48 (+/-75% killed; My catchdog was killed, making it more difficult to release hogs alive.)
1999 - 41 (+/-50% killed; I killed enough to keep meat in the freezer for anyone who wanted it.)
1998 - 37 (100% killed; I could hardly eat or give it all away; this prompted me to get a catchdog.)
Unless I significantly start "farming out" my "services" by having someone with me every time, this increase will cost me a damn fortune.
