05-24-2010, 02:22 AM
Would you care to offer any evidence that money that is collected from the Pittman Robertson Act goes directly towards Invasive Species prevention and/or education in Utah?
The Utah Division of Wildlife themselves said that the funding for Invasive Species would come from the Tax Payers of Utah via the General Fund of the State.
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/...10507.html
Wyoming IS NOT like Utah, thank god, and our Game and Fish's budget DOES NOT come from our state's General Fund. They are required by STATE LAW to be self sufficient via license sales etc. The state legislature may give one time funding allowances (like they did this year to start the AIS program) but by law they CAN NOT continue this type of funding.
Here is an interesting report from the Wyoming Game and Fish.
[url "http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/annualreports/2009/2009AnnualReport_final.pdf"]http://gf.state.wy.us/...nualReport_final.pdf[/url]
For those who don't think we should be paying for AIS management, and since the state legislature is requiring the G&F to manage for AIS, where would you like to see budget cuts to pay for the estimated cost of $1.5 million annually? Where would Non-Residents like to see cuts so their license fees could be kept lower?
Remember one thing, EVERY single penny you pay for fees and licenses in Wyoming goes DIRECTLY to the management of our wildlife. Wyoming is not like Utah where the revenue from license sales goes into the state's general fund to be managed by Utah's legislature.
FYI, Here is a rough summary/estimate of the revenue sources of the Game and Fish.
78% License sales, Conservation Stamp sales, Preference Points, Application fees, Boater Registration, Access Yes, etc.
12% Federal Aid from the Pittman Robertson Act
5% Investment and Interest
2% Funding allocated by the Wyoming Legislature (This money was specifically allocated to the management of Wolves, Grizz, and Sage Grouse.)
1% Non Fed Grants (These expenditures are well documented in the annual reports. Brucellosis is not one of them)
1% Publication Sales
1% Other
[signature]
The Utah Division of Wildlife themselves said that the funding for Invasive Species would come from the Tax Payers of Utah via the General Fund of the State.
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/...10507.html
Wyoming IS NOT like Utah, thank god, and our Game and Fish's budget DOES NOT come from our state's General Fund. They are required by STATE LAW to be self sufficient via license sales etc. The state legislature may give one time funding allowances (like they did this year to start the AIS program) but by law they CAN NOT continue this type of funding.
Here is an interesting report from the Wyoming Game and Fish.
[url "http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/annualreports/2009/2009AnnualReport_final.pdf"]http://gf.state.wy.us/...nualReport_final.pdf[/url]
For those who don't think we should be paying for AIS management, and since the state legislature is requiring the G&F to manage for AIS, where would you like to see budget cuts to pay for the estimated cost of $1.5 million annually? Where would Non-Residents like to see cuts so their license fees could be kept lower?
Remember one thing, EVERY single penny you pay for fees and licenses in Wyoming goes DIRECTLY to the management of our wildlife. Wyoming is not like Utah where the revenue from license sales goes into the state's general fund to be managed by Utah's legislature.
FYI, Here is a rough summary/estimate of the revenue sources of the Game and Fish.
78% License sales, Conservation Stamp sales, Preference Points, Application fees, Boater Registration, Access Yes, etc.
12% Federal Aid from the Pittman Robertson Act
5% Investment and Interest
2% Funding allocated by the Wyoming Legislature (This money was specifically allocated to the management of Wolves, Grizz, and Sage Grouse.)
1% Non Fed Grants (These expenditures are well documented in the annual reports. Brucellosis is not one of them)
1% Publication Sales
1% Other
[signature]