Has anyone else notice the tag price increase?

[Shot]

I was at a DFG office today buying my pig tags and realize that the new price is $17.85. I just think this is sad, considering that the 1st deer tag is only $24.95. What a sorry way for DFG to raise money. To me it says a lot about the organization of this state's Fish and Game where they charge a few bucks less when compared to deer for a animal thats considered a nuisance.


Oh, and I hate it when DFG officers say "Well, do you know how underpaid we are", well than go on a freaking strike or quit your job ( I know, easier said than done). But still, its not right when they foot the bill to hunters. I realize its just a few dollars more than last year, but when the hell will it stop.

I just wanted to vent.

 

[Valley Hunter]

I hear ya,,,, and considering in 2003/2004 you could buy a book of 5 Wild Pig tags for $9.20. I choke now each time I buy a tag... let alone to buy two....

 

[BirdDawg]

I must be old as I remember shooting all the hogs I could without a tag........it's been my understanding that the reason for the tags was just a year or two survey to see the amount of hogs in california.....can't say this is a fact but that's what I've been told.

 

[efm1aug1]

Just can not wait until we have to pay $100.00 For one..There should be a way to protest as a group so it would get their attention..Do they have a emall address that we could all send a protest letter to..??

 

[Speckmisser]

I think it's ridiculous too. But, there's not much you're gonna do about it. You can send emails to everyone in DFG, and to the Governator too. That'll at least get your voice heard, and if enough folks do it, it might even amount to a fair rumble. It's unlikely to provide results, though.

But actions speak louder. Call and complain, and then DON'T BUY TAGS. If every hunter who disagrees with the price increase refused to buy a tag, that would make an impact that DFG would have no choice but to take note of. After a couple of years without tag sales, price adjustments would be made. The market rules.

Yeah, that would mean no hog hunting for a year or two, but true protest calls for sacrifice. If it's a cause worth fighting for, then it's a cause worth sacrificing for.

If you're not willing to do that... well, then buck up and pay the man.

 

[BirdDawg]

well I would be more than willing to sacrafice a few years of hog hunting for a good cause. .......cause I don't hunt em much anywho.

 

[THE ROMAN ARCHER]

cant wait to buy a lifetime tag........tra

 

[MJB]

Come on guys you all have heard that with less hunters their is less money to pay the DFG........so they raise the price to make up for the short fall.
I know it sucks but that's how it goes in Gov't, I think if they ran the Government like a business we all be better off......no money no job, smaller price increase.

 

[Shot]

Sad thing is I will still continue to buy tags. You all know how it is, you get the itch and you have to scratch it. I have to admit I am addicted to hog hunting and it will be really difficult for me to stop. Tell you the truth I don't know at what price I would stop.

DFG knows how dedicated hunters are. They know no matter what price (within reason) the tags are, hunters will buy them. Its like we're drug addicts and they are the dealer.

The lifetime license looks more appealing now.

 

[Taylor31]

Just wait till they start having ground squirrel and jack rabbit tags. It is funny we have to pay to hunt somthing that the state pays to get rid of. Maybe there should be a Lake Davis Pike stamp too.

 

[WildlifeBranch]

I can't make it easier to swallow these increased fees, but here is some recollections from about 1992 or so, I got from Doug Updike in the branch (Doug has been there since the early 80s):

"Pig tag was originally designed by small landowners and Santa Cruz County Ag Commissioner. The idea was to charge hunters the tag fee, have the Department keep the funds, and provide the funds solely for various counties to hire personnel to eradicate pigs on private property. We got the bill amended to a very inexpensive tag and took the counties out of the money. The tag was not our idea. Also, the recent increase in the price of pig tags was not our idea. Lots of details missing in this, but it's a thumbnail sketch. "


The irony there is the intent was to charge hunters for hunting pigs, then use the money to exterminate them. Recognize there is current round of discussion in the health/agriculture community to deal with wild pigs again because of the food safety issue and fear of E.coli on leafy-green cash crops.

The frequent increases in tag/permit fees is due to inflationary calculations per section 713 of the Fish and Game Code:
Section 713 F&G code

 

[Shot]

Say what? So the pig tag fee wasn't the DFG's idea to begin with, but I don't hear them (DFG) complaining about the fee. They must love it.

 

[Speckmisser]

Wildlife Branch, while I appreciate the candor and your presence here, you're right... you didn't make it any easier to swallow.

I can tell you that I'd be bouncing off the ceiling about this if I hadn't bought my lifetime license before the big price increases started. As such, I'm pretty much insulated from the price changes.

However, folks who still buy tags annually are right to be pissed off, and I support that sentiment. And while my suggestion of a boycott was pretty much rhetorical (no way enough hunters would quit hunting to support such a thing), the suggestion was meant to make folks think... how much is too much? At what point will you stop buying tags?

I'm generally pretty supportive of the Fish And Game Commission and DFG, but I have yet to read or hear an acceptable explanation for why pig tags have suddenly jumped so high at the same time that pig numbers are steadily increasing across the state and the country. The logical response would be to either make it cheaper and more accessible for hunters to harvest more pigs in order to slow or reverse the population growth, or to come right out and declare that pigs are now to be managed as a true game animal, and the population will be enhanced and encouraged rather than eradicated. You can't have it both ways... at least not without causing an uproar.

 

[Taylor31]

I understand what you are saying, I just feel that if the whole point is to get lowwer the numbers of hogs out there giving more tags, would seem more effective. If the whole point is to lower the amount of pigs why didn't the price go up per book, instead of becoming a single tag and still going up? Why should I have to pay to get the hogs out of someone elses property? Give them Depredation tags and let them kill them them selves. It seem to me back wards. When pig tags were 9 bucks a book I bought book or two and now that they are 15 I buy a tag or two last year I never even bouht a tag I just chose not to hunt hogs. So are more pigs being killed? Not buy me, I kill my one or two pigs a year and watch the rest rut up the hills.

 

[wavesfr]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Speckmisser @ Sep 8 2007, 11:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Wildlife Branch, while I appreciate the candor and your presence here, you're right... you didn't make it any easier to swallow.

I can tell you that I'd be bouncing off the ceiling about this if I hadn't bought my lifetime license before the big price increases started. As such, I'm pretty much insulated from the price changes.

However, folks who still buy tags annually are right to be pissed off, and I support that sentiment. And while my suggestion of a boycott was pretty much rhetorical (no way enough hunters would quit hunting to support such a thing), the suggestion was meant to make folks think... how much is too much? At what point will you stop buying tags?

I'm generally pretty supportive of the Fish And Game Commission and DFG, but I have yet to read or hear an acceptable explanation for why pig tags have suddenly jumped so high at the same time that pig numbers are steadily increasing across the state and the country. The logical response would be to either make it cheaper and more accessible for hunters to harvest more pigs in order to slow or reverse the population growth, or to come right out and declare that pigs are now to be managed as a true game animal, and the population will be enhanced and encouraged rather than eradicated. You can't have it both ways... at least not without causing an uproar.[/b]

YEP!!!!!!
Taylors right too. Why do We have to pay for property owners problems?
Alot of them farm these hogs anyways. Big money in that now days.
Why don't DFG do some PLM thing with the ranches.
A guy I know here is on the comittee they fly him back & forth to sacramento.
He's told Me that licenses etc. Are slated to go up every year indefinatly.
Wonder what would happen to DFG if We all bought lifetimes.
I too support the DFG & welcome they're presence here as well.
I buy hunting/fishing lic. upland stamp, 2 deer tags,2 pig tags,1 bear & book of bobcat.EXPENSIVE
I even donate money to our trout hatcheries.
I think it's just the #1 sought after animal in kali & they realized that finally. They'll probably be higher than a deer tag in the future. When thats all that is left is pigs & mountain lions!

 

[WildlifeBranch]

We don’t want non-native wild pigs to be California’s #1 game animal. As a deer ecologist, that isn’t funny to me at all.

These private properties were/are too small to run a PLM program and they won't let hunters on because of the hassle and liability. PLMs would be the best way to go for the larger ranch properties.

We met last week with the F&G Commission’s Al Taucher hunting and fishing advisory group--some of your organizations are part of it, if not they should be. Some of the discussion was about "dedicated accounts" like the wild pig account.

While DFG can certainly use part of the money that comes in every year from pig tags, the State does not fully allocate all the funds received to the Department. As a result we have a growing amount ($2.8 million) of wild pig tag funds in "reserve". This is public information if you want to figure out state budget interpretation (it is complicated). budget. I'll look into how those decisions are made about fees, I don't know where that decision is made in State Govt.

The issue we have with a dedicated account for wild pigs (or for something like turkeys through a "turkey tag" which is being talked about by some) is that the sportsmen want/expect DFG to improve conditions for these species, make more of them, and provide for additional hunting opportunity.

The problem with that is that they are non-native species and enhancing conditions for non-native species puts DFG's two mission statements at odds:

The Mission of the Department of Fish and Game is to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.

Hunters bash us for not using the funds to increase wild pigs (how would we do that anyhow is beyond me given most are on private land, the rest are on public USFS/BLM land that we do not manage).

The environmentalist and agriculture community bash us for not working to eradicate them-- [read up on "E. coli" in the Salinas Valley for example and the inability to sell crops if pigs or deer get in the field].

So, no, we don't love it (the pig tag). Cracks me up.. some of you guys thinking we sit around trying to think up ways to get more money out of you.

 

[Rancho Loco]

You want people to actually read the budget? Good luck with that - I've already made that suggestion many times, and you can tell how far it went.

That being said - The budget is difficult to decode and understand, and a great way to get to sleep. Could you guys find anyone to summarize the DFG budget and process so it's easier to understand to the layperson? Tall order, I know - but it would do wonders to help people understand and not make baseless assumptions and accusations.

 

[easymoney]

Glad hear to the input from a DFG rep.
I am one of the ones who can relate to birddawgs comment:
"I must be old as I remember shooting all the hogs I could without a tag........"
and I hail from one of the counties with the highest pig populations in the state.

Unfortunately, the tag fees will never go down nor go away because the money to be made is just too good. The private land owners have also realized they can make more money by leasing out to guides with a very willing client base, despite all the complaining about the damage done. The population has grown and will continue to grow despite all the attempts at eradication.
And, unfortunately wild pigs might just become the number one big game animal taken in CA...

 

[WildlifeBranch]

Easy- this may be a time to see if a change might happen with the concern about E. Coli and the increased pressure to reduce pig numbers in/around agricultural crops. DFG, Public Health and Food and Ag departments may lead the way and provide the justification to increase hunting opportunity (possibly through reduced fees for pig hunting) as a public health mechanism.

we shall see whether this evolves.

rancho-- you're right on the budget-- it is a sleeper. I'm working to provide a condensed version related to hunting programs for the Taucher Committee-- it can be shared here too when done.

 

[Speckmisser]

No bashing from me, Wildlife, although I've seen plenty of it.

BUT...

Your explanation further complicates the issue... or else you should see the frustration that the program creates for the hunters.

First, the issue that started this... the increasing cost of a single pig tag....almost a 10x increase in only a couple of years.

Now weigh that, from the perspective of the hunters, against what you just described.

No enhancement of habitat (which makes sense, of course).
No enhanced hunting opportunities.

In fact, what we see is:

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

The issue we have with a dedicated account for wild pigs (or for something like turkeys through a "turkey tag" which is being talked about by some) is that the sportsmen want/expect DFG to improve conditions for these species, make more of them, and provide for additional hunting opportunity.[/b]

Well, you're damned right they expect something in return for charging them more for the privilege to hunt. What ARE hunters getting for their money when it comes to pig tags? I don't think that's an unfair question, nor do I think the hunters are wrong to raise cain about the increases. I think if there were a clear answer to these questions, then at the very least folks would have a specific target for discussion and debate, rather than the generalized, "DFG is raising fees to fatten their own coffers."

If I raised the price of any other product by 1000 percent, I would expect my customers to want to know why too.