G&F funding/budgets

[Bura Nut]

This post is for all people who are trying to split hairs on whether funding comes from Feds or State. Many people speak without having anything of substance to back them up. I can tell you that in AZ there is a substantial (approximately $500,000) worth of funding from Arizona Deer Association to the AZGFD that comes directly from our couple fundraisers/banquets each year. This figure seems to be left out in all of these internet posts. Another source of "funding" comes from people that are on habitat partnership committes donating time, resources such as water trucks, radio collaring deer/elk, predator hunts etc......There are a few people on this board that regularily donate time, money, services etc.....that are not accounted for in the neat ratio's of state and federal allocations. Let me put it this way. Last night ADA met with the Assit Director Steve Ferrell and one major problem now is the inability of AZGFD to tabulate and tell US the people that ARE donating money and time where our dollars are spent. Basically we are asking for an accounting of where we are at with projects we funded and how much money has been spent and how much is left. The existing accounting system (or lack thereof) is not allowing the AZGFD to answer our questions. Regardless of your position on the AZ fiasco there is alot of "other money" that is not coming from federal sources and we dont know how it was spent............ Allen Taylor......

 

[remsal]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-22-04 AT 06:30PM (MST)[p]Bura- I have made some of those post of which you speak. The figures available to me indicate that approx. 37% of AFGD's funding comes from fedral funds, another 3.5% comes from non-res license fees. I don't dispute that many of you work hard for the cause, but the financial argument that AZ pays the lions share is just plain bunk and needs to be left out of the discussion. My arguement is and will continue to be the fact that many of the species that are so sought after in your state live on federal land. I understand that the states were given responsibility to manage the wildlife, however, that was done to best protect the wildlife not entitle anyone in particular. You folks in the West have a huge percentage of the public lane in the United States, land that was purchased in it's entirety with federal monies. This includes your state of Arizona and practically all land West of the Rockies. Maybe the answer is to have 100% of tags on state land go to AZ residents and the rest on an equal basis. I don't have the answers, I only know that some guaranteed % would be more nice for those of us that don't live there.

Peace

 

[MikeC1]

Way off base Remsal. From Baldwin vs Montana G&F

"Appellees argue that the State(Montana) constitutionally should be able to charge nonresidents, who are not subject to the States general taxing power, more than it charges its residents, who are subject to that power and who have already contributed to the programs that make elk hunting possible. Appellees also urge that Montana, as a state, has made sacrifices in its economic development, and therefore in its tax base, in order to preserve the elk and other wildilfe within the state and that this too, must be counted, along with actual tax revenues spent, when computing the fair share to be paid by nonresidents."

"A repititious review of the factual setting is revealing: The resident obviously assits in the production and maintenance of big game populations through taxes. The same taxes provide support for state parks utilized by sportsmen, plaintiffs exhibit 1; for roads providing access to the hunting areas, for fire suppression to protect the wildlife habitat, for benifits to the habitat effected by the states environmental quality council, for the enforcement of state air and water quality standards, for assistance by sheriffs department to enforce game laws and for state hiway patrol officers who assist wildlife officers at game checking stations and in enforcement of game laws. Forage support by resident ranchers is critical for winter survival. All this is on a continuing basis."

Whew.....if you think typing all that from a paper was easy! No complaints about typos.

It is far too easy to focus on only the Game & Fish budget and not see the big picture. Residents contribute far more than what is in the Game & fish dept. budget.

As to all the talk about the elk living on federal land and therefor belonging to everyone. What about the private landowner with elk living on his place? Can he say those are my elk and I can do with them as I please? I don't think so! They belong (are in trust)to the people of whatever state they are in! No matter where they are living.

Federal dollars are distributed to all Game and Fish departments across the US.

 

[Phantom Hunter]

As an employee of a state G & F agency (Texas), I can tell you the money states receive from the feds is paid out from Dingel-Johnson or Pittman-Roberson Act funds. These funds are generated from excise taxes paid to the Feds by companies that manufacture hunting and fishing equipment. The funds are distributed to the states based on thats states percentage of licenses sold. In the case of Western states with Federal land, there is also some monies expended by the BLM and FS on habitat improvement and wildlife management.

Phantom Hunter