As many of you have probably already heard, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is proposing a substantial license fee increase that involves every license both resident and nonresident. There has been serious opposition to this increase, not so much for the increase itself but because of what many in opposition call extremely poor management, illegal use of license fee money to fund non game activities and the waste of funds on unwanted gray wolves and the costs of the federal program.
Below are two letters being circulated by several individuals and groups opposed to the IDFG rate increase. These letters and others like them, have been sent to members of the Idaho Legislature.
The first is a copy of a letter sent to Idaho’s Senator Little by a concerned citizen.
Dear Senator Little,
I write in opposition to the proposed IDF&G fee increase. The reasons for opposing this fee increase are many and well justified. Like most matters of controversy, some research is in order beyond the data provided by the agency seeking the funding. My purpose here is to acquaint you with what I believe to be the very best and well researched tract on the subject; namely, the October-December issue of the Outdoorsman, published by George Dovel, which issue is devoted to the requested IDF&G fee increase and management issues. If you do not already have a copy, feel free to e-mail me and I will send a copy to you that you can download. BTW, George Dovel would make an excellent and informed witness at the committee hearings.
Among the related complaints is the fact that IDF&G has misused hunting license fee proceeds and completely mismanaged the wolf issue in Idaho. Regarding the latter, IDF&G has arrogantly operated beyond its grant of authority from the legislature. In 2002, the Idaho Legislature wrote and approved the “Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan,” noting, however, in the executive summary portion that it was the policy of the State of Idaho that the wolves should be removed. The Wolf Plan provided for maintaining a minimum population of 15 breeding pairs or approx. 150 wolves. Notwithstanding the Wolf Plan, which is the only wolf plan approved for Idaho, IDF&G Commission recently agreed to maintain a minimum of 500+ wolves. This action by IDF&G is contrary not only to Idaho policy but to the Wolf Plan that IDF&G is directed to manage. The 2002 plan did not change the Legislature’s intent to have all of the wolves removed, but did agree to manage for 15 packs (~150 wolves).
In these economically pressing times, the best move, I suggest, would be to cut the IDF&G budget by rescinding the Idaho Wolf Management Plan. This would be fully justified, because the federal government has completely failed (despite many promises and excuses) to delist the wolves with the result that they continue to expand unabated. A disaster is in the making. The feds are hoping to keep the states’ cooperation by threatening to turn the wolf management program over to the tribes if the states back out. It is a threat without teeth when closely analyzed.
By thus boycotting the federal wolf program, Idaho will not only save money by avoiding an expanding IDF&G bureaucracy related to wolf management when federal money runs out, but the State will not be blamed when the now rapidly depleting elk and other wildlife herds are essentially wiped out and then the ever increasing wolves turn on domestic wildlife. Let the feds and the tribes take the blame and expend their funds to overcome this looming environmental catastrophe. Incidentally, there is an express denial of any guarantee of future federal funding for “joint” wolf management in Section VII of the January 6, 2006 Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and the State of Idaho regarding wolf management. Please extract Idaho from this mess while you can!
I have also written to Senators Geddes and Davis in this matter.
The second is a copy of a letter and information being sent to members of the Idaho Legislator by Tony Mayer of SaveElk.com. Mayer encourages anyone opposed to the increase can use this sample letter to send to their own representative.
Dear____________:
The fee increase is basically across the board. It is a significant increase and will make it difficult or impossible for many low and middle-income individuals to afford the increased cost for licenses and tags. The breakdown is as follows and is included on page 8 of the Outdoorsman attachment:
Proposed IDFG Fee Increases by Percentage
Type Resident Nonresident
Hunt, Fish Comb. License 11% 20%
Fishing License 16% 20%
Hunting License 16% 13%**
Sportsman’s Package 20% n/a
Deer Tag 28%* 4%**
Controlled Hunt Deer Tag 36%* 17%
Archery or Muzz Permit 11%** 11%**
Elk A Tag (archery) 10%** 12%**
Elk B Tag 26%* 21%
Controlled Hunt Elk Tag 26%* 21%
Bear Tag 85%* 23%
Mountain Lion Tag 85%* 23%
Gray Wolf Tag 85%* 23%
Salmon or Steelhead Permit 64%* 118%
Controlled Hunt Application 83%* 200%
CH App. for Bucks, Bulls 317%* 428%
(* Extreme increases for resident permits and tags)
(** Minor increases for archery and NR hunt, deer, elk)
In addition to this fee increase, there are some other very significant issues with the IDF&G that we recommend be reviewed.
Attached are copies of correspondence to Senator Little, along with a well researched 12/30/08 Outdoorsman documentary identifying and chronologizing significant concerns of mismanagement by the IDF&G. It should be apparent after reviewing this Outdoorsman article, that the IDF&G has a pattern of deception with the Idaho Legislature and has evolved into an organization that has often and consistently ignored mandates by the legislature and by the Governor; and has gone out of it’s way to conceal staff, and redirect funding outside the scope of legislative spending mandates.
In the Outdoorsman documentary, you will note where the IDF&G has acted in a subversive, non-discreet manner with the legislature and with the IDF&G Commission regarding its budget and expenditures. On pages 4 and 5 of the Outdoorsman, there is discussion of the departments mandated headcount level, and reference that the department was limited to 528 full-time equivalent employees. However after a FOA request by the author, I was learned that the actual headcount is considerably higher after considering part-time employees, which adds another 424 “benefited temps” for an actual headcount of 952 benefited employees. Even factoring the temps for Full-time equivalent, the department staff levels equate to massive overstaffing of 55% to 80% over the departments mandated headcount limit. The additional costs associated are conservatively estimated to be costing sportsman an additional $4 – $8 million annually. In addition, there are many other significant spending abuses and mismanagement, that controlled could save over $10-20 million annually with proper reorganization. One would hope that the legislature will not ignore these spending abuses and this egregious abusive headcount issue.
In spite of the significant run-away spending by the IDF&G department, they have not been satisfying the mission of their department and have been mismanaging our states game populations for years. Most surrounding states have been experiencing continual growth in game populations and increasing hunting and sporting activities. In Idaho the opposite is true, in most cases our game populations are in a significant state of decline and the IDF&G has been essentially in a state of denial about this issue, and appears to be more focused with other non-game issues, especially with the Canadian Grey wolf introduction into our state.
The IDF&G department has lost touch with sportsman and citizens of Idaho and more importunately with fulfilling their mission.
We believe its time for a significant review of the IDF&G department, and for serious consideration of necessary restructuring to put them back on target. Resisting this fee increase and recommending significant spending reductions is a good first step. Once the “fluff” is identified and all non-essential expenses are “pruned”, we believe the legislature should consider laying the groundwork to reorganize this department from the top down, and insist they take the necessary steps to reestablish their mandated mission to “preserve, protect, and perpetuate wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.”
Now is the time for the legislature to act on these important issues and to resist and oppose this fee increase.
Tom Remington
