Heating up on new fees

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

I think you should look at what the CPI was the last time the cost of a saltwater fishing license was raised and then look at the CPI today... I think you will find that EVERY THING in the world has gone up in price by WAY more than 136% in that time period... why should a fishing license be any different?

LDWF is funded with a number of revenue streams, not just license fees, so the argument that license fees should increase with the consumer price index is invalid. Their overall budget has grown by over 136% since the last change in the saltwater license fee.

But LDWF has represented that this increase is needed to allow them to take better data to better manage the fisheries. We are less than trusting in that representation for several reasons:

1. Dedicated funds are seldom used as promised in Louisiana. Note the robbing of the $26 million artificial reef fund.

2. The actual language of the bill does not dedicate the money to research, and LDWF would be at liberty to spend the money on anything on anything remotely qualifying as conservation, including likely using the money to staff new (unneeded) saltwater hatcheries and fund their operation. The money could also be used for any enforcement efforts related to conservation, including bigger rewards to catch violators who shoot whooping cranes.

3. LDWF has been secretive about their saltwater fisheries data for the past four years, even though this data was acquired with public funds. It would be dishonest to say that this data is under a "gag order" since no court has ordered keeping a lid on the data. The decision to keep the data secret comes from within the executive branch, and they could just as easily decide to share the data with all stakeholders and scientists. This situation is very similar to the EPA which is now refusing to provide the data upon which many of their restrictive policies and regulations are based. Why should we pay for LDWF to acquire more data to analyze in secret and proclaim support for more restrictive regulations? Government should be more open than this.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

LDWF is funded with a number of revenue streams, not just license fees, so the argument that license fees should increase with the consumer price index is invalid. Their overall budget has grown by over 136% since the last change in the saltwater license fee.

But LDWF has represented that this increase is needed to allow them to take better data to better manage the fisheries. We are less than trusting in that representation for several reasons:

1. Dedicated funds are seldom used as promised in Louisiana. Note the robbing of the $26 million artificial reef fund.

2. The actual language of the bill does not dedicate the money to research, and LDWF would be at liberty to spend the money on anything on anything remotely qualifying as conservation, including likely using the money to staff new (unneeded) saltwater hatcheries and fund their operation. The money could also be used for any enforcement efforts related to conservation, including bigger rewards to catch violators who shoot whooping cranes.

3. LDWF has been secretive about their saltwater fisheries data for the past four years, even though this data was acquired with public funds. It would be dishonest to say that this data is under a "gag order" since no court has ordered keeping a lid on the data. The decision to keep the data secret comes from within the executive branch, and they could just as easily decide to share the data with all stakeholders and scientists. This situation is very similar to the EPA which is now refusing to provide the data upon which many of their restrictive policies and regulations are based. Why should we pay for LDWF to acquire more data to analyze in secret and proclaim support for more restrictive regulations? Government should be more open than this.

when you requested data, you got a letter from an attorney correct? What did that letter say? Can you post it?

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

when you requested data, you got a letter from an attorney correct? What did that letter say? Can you post it?

DB....many of us in the outdoor press to include indoor press have even filed FIA (Freedom of Information Act) letters to them. Their attorneys with the support of the courts say "Litigation is in process and we refuse comment at this time."

And...such is true whenever litigation is in process - especially one of this size with BP. The very last Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) data available came from assessments in 2011.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

DB....many of us in the outdoor press to include indoor press have even filed FIA (Freedom of Information Act) letters to them. Their attorneys with the support of the courts say "Litigation is in process and we refuse comment at this time."

And...such is true whenever litigation is in process - especially one of this size with BP. The very last Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) data available came from assessments in 2011.

yep, and that is why I question how people are coming up with their data when it is not available to the public at this time until the litigation is over.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

LDWF is funded with a number of revenue streams, not just license fees, so the argument that license fees should increase with the consumer price index is invalid. MG that is like saying that LOTS of parts go into building a car... just because the price of automobiles has gone up doesn't mean the price of tires needs to go up. CPI is a generally accepted indicator of inflation. Why are license fees not subject to inflation over time? Their overall budget has grown by over 136% since the last change in the saltwater license fee. Agree... If you can show me that the OVERALL funding has gone up at the same rate of inflation as the budget in spite of the license fees staying the same then I would agree that the license fees do not warrant an increase.

But LDWF has represented that this increase is needed to allow them to take better data to better manage the fisheries. We are less than trusting in that representation for several reasons: I wholeheartedly agree with you here... But I believe these issues are separate... they can abuse the money they already get just as easily as new money. That doesn't necessarily mean that an increase in license fees is not warranted.

What if they just came out and said we are going to raise license fees from $5.50 to $13.00 effective 2014 without any reasoning besides inflation? Would that be OK? Or are you only opposed to the increase because you are suspect of where the increased funds will be spent?

They could just as easily write into a bill exactly where this money will be spent and abide by that... all the while sliding money from other areas to fund the projects you don't want.

All I'm trying to say is that whether the license increase goes through or not will not necessarily impact your reason for being suspect of budget issues that you don't agree with. Those things are still going to go on unless something is done to change them.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

What if they just came out and said we are going to raise license fees from $5.50 to $13.00 effective 2014 without any reasoning besides inflation? Would that be OK? Or are you only opposed to the increase because you are suspect of where the increased funds will be spent?

In general, funding of government agencies should be subject to citizens being satisfied with the services provided by those government agencies.

Your argument amounts to asserting that agency funding should be increased proportionally to costs of doing business regardless of whether they are adhering to their mission or satisfying citizens with their services.

The law specifies that wildlife and fisheries in Louisiana be managed with the best available science. Good science is at the core of their mission. Citizens have noticed that the LWF Commission and LDWF has deviated from their mission by consistently mismanaging resources and passing more restrictive regulations without and scientific need. Further, LDWF has refused to share data for four years now, while continuing to pass more restrictive regulations.

Refusing to further increase their funding is one reasonable and prudent step citizens can take to encourage state agencies to better achieve their mission. Passing every request to increase funding is more likely to maintain the status quo. I would support cutting funding for the EPA for the same reason.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

In general, funding of government agencies should be subject to citizens being satisfied with the services provided by those government agencies.



Your argument amounts to asserting that agency funding should be increased proportionally to costs of doing business regardless of whether they are adhering to their mission or satisfying citizens with their services.



The law specifies that wildlife and fisheries in Louisiana be managed with the best available science. Good science is at the core of their mission. Citizens have noticed that the LWF Commission and LDWF has deviated from their mission by consistently mismanaging resources and passing more restrictive regulations without and scientific need. Further, LDWF has refused to share data for four years now, while continuing to pass more restrictive regulations.



Refusing to further increase their funding is one reasonable and prudent step citizens can take to encourage state agencies to better achieve their mission. Passing every request to increase funding is more likely to maintain the status quo. I would support cutting funding for the EPA for the same reason.

So you won't be purchasing a fishing or hunting license for the foreseeable future in protest?

Didnt think so

This is my point.. You are condoning by funding as much as i am. The other methods of protest are more inline with my agenda. So i keep these issues separate.



Sent from my fruity phone