01-19-2006, 11:57 PM
[reply]
Do you want liberal congressmen, dependent on PETA campaign donations, or rural arch conservatives, who want a lawless free-for-all on our wildlife, exerting major control on the DWR?
[/reply]
I think this is absolutely a valid point, and one that has finally put me over the edge to support the proposed increase in fees. I would say the latter (rural conservatives) is the major concern where the Natural Resources and Ag. Committee is concerned. Many of them have a love-hate relationship with the DWR, some a hate relationship. If they feel they have justification to stick their hand in DWR matters--don't kid yourself--they'll take it.
Now I'm not saying they're all bad; not at all. But their perspective is skewed towards their own interests, and the interests of those whispers in their ears. Keeping funding tied to fees means the decisions are made by bioligists and other experienced officials, and they have to respond to the source of those fees: us!
It's like health care. Do you want an HMO bean-counter deciding what medicine you should take, or do you want a doctor making the call?
I favor the increased fees--this time. I favor some funding from the General Fund, as I pay taxes and I'd like to feel like it's going somewhere useful. I also favor the DWR not putting itself in this situation altogether in the future. Fishing license sales are down, and they need to figure out why. Is it that fisheries are less alluring? More people are going out of state to fish? Is it a law enforcement issue? (People still fish but don't buy a license because they just plain aren't getting checked?) And what about hunting license fees? Are we drawing in enough people from out of state? Too many?
I don't have the answers to avoid this situation in the future, but I think these are some of the right questions. The hot issue now is the fee increase, but the REAL issue is what's prompting it.
lurechucker
[signature]
Do you want liberal congressmen, dependent on PETA campaign donations, or rural arch conservatives, who want a lawless free-for-all on our wildlife, exerting major control on the DWR?
[/reply]
I think this is absolutely a valid point, and one that has finally put me over the edge to support the proposed increase in fees. I would say the latter (rural conservatives) is the major concern where the Natural Resources and Ag. Committee is concerned. Many of them have a love-hate relationship with the DWR, some a hate relationship. If they feel they have justification to stick their hand in DWR matters--don't kid yourself--they'll take it.
Now I'm not saying they're all bad; not at all. But their perspective is skewed towards their own interests, and the interests of those whispers in their ears. Keeping funding tied to fees means the decisions are made by bioligists and other experienced officials, and they have to respond to the source of those fees: us!
It's like health care. Do you want an HMO bean-counter deciding what medicine you should take, or do you want a doctor making the call?
I favor the increased fees--this time. I favor some funding from the General Fund, as I pay taxes and I'd like to feel like it's going somewhere useful. I also favor the DWR not putting itself in this situation altogether in the future. Fishing license sales are down, and they need to figure out why. Is it that fisheries are less alluring? More people are going out of state to fish? Is it a law enforcement issue? (People still fish but don't buy a license because they just plain aren't getting checked?) And what about hunting license fees? Are we drawing in enough people from out of state? Too many?
I don't have the answers to avoid this situation in the future, but I think these are some of the right questions. The hot issue now is the fee increase, but the REAL issue is what's prompting it.
lurechucker
[signature]