'Simplified' Fees by AZGFD

[couesmagnet]

Talk About priorities....

+1

I thought the exact same thing!

. I thought the same thing also,wow that feels better.plus two hundred..everything is so much better now .thanks fellas just awesome advice

[Dan H]

You notice AZGFD never has the public meetings of this nature at any of the outdoor expos around the state where thousands of sportsman will attend.

Maybe AZGFD should set up booths at sportsman stores around the state to gather their input.

 

They won't cause "Boyz around here" dont take no shoot chew tobacca, chew-tobacca ,chew tobacca spit!!

 

I have attended a few of these meetings in Phx & Mesa office in the past like when archery deer hunt in 22 and 23 went away in Dec.

And the public turnout was terrible.

More people probably went to Carls Jr for breakfast than attended the meetings.

 

It is going to take some high percentage public response from all scenarios i.e: e-mail, mailed responses, public appearance at meetings etc. to make a difference now.

[Dan H]

_{Awesome it changed the *hit word automatically?}

[1uglydude]

Additionally, there is a reason we pay less as AZ residents. Because we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year.

 

Actually, we don't. AZGFD doesn't receive any taxpayer money for game management. It's all through licenses and tags. And, in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for the general fund.

 

As to only going up a few percentage points each year. Okay. With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%,

 

Let's not all forget that none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place. In other words, the Department had authority to raise tag prices even higher than this before the "simplification" bill. They're just doing it now because they can also change the licensing structure.

 

And to the guy complaining about they "keys to the Kingdom" license for resident and non-resident youth. Youth have always paid the same price for youth licenses, regardless of residency. Its in place, in part, to encourage new youth to try out our unique hunting experiences, but it also allows Arizonas resident fathers with children living out of state to bring their kids here for the same price as if they lived with the full time. I haven't made up my mind about all the other changes, but I support the $5 youth license 110%. They're our future hunters (and voters), and we should make it as easy for them as possible to get into the field and have a positive experience.

[Jcubed]

 

Additionally, there is a reason we pay less as AZ residents. Because we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year.

Actually, we don't. AZGFD doesn't receive any taxpayer money for game management. It's all through licenses and tags. And, in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for the general fund.

 

As to only going up a few percentage points each year. Okay. With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%,

 

Let's not all forget that none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place. In other words, the Department had authority to raise tag prices even higher than this before the "simplification" bill. They're just doing it now because they can also change the licensing structure.

 

And to the guy complaining about they "keys to the Kingdom" license for resident and non-resident youth. Youth have always paid the same price for youth licenses, regardless of residency. Its in place, in part, to encourage new youth to try out our unique hunting experiences, but it also allows Arizonas resident fathers with children living out of state to bring their kids here for the same price as if they lived with the full time. I haven't made up my mind about all the other changes, but I support the $5 youth license 110%. They're our future hunters (and voters), and we should make it as easy for them as possible to get into the field and have a positive experience.

Thanks for this response.

 

Might be an interesting question... how many here have actually gone to an AZGFD meeting where they hear public comments on proposed changes?

[MULEPACKHUNTER]

Taxes from the purchase of fire arms and such goes towards Game Management if I remember right.

I agree that the increases are high and I hope they go down. One thing that I keep hearing is pricing folks out and I am sorry but sometimes you just cant afford to do what you want. Bottom line. I am tired of hearing people say everyone should get to do this or that because that is not true. That is welfare. The cost is going to be what it is because most people wont show for the meetings as said before and even if they do they will be heard and ignored just like all politics so in the end do what you have to to do the things you want and if that don't work then I guess you don't get to do them. Just because your a poor kid or family doesn't mean you get to elk hunt for 10 bucks. I cant afford a new truck so I guess I should get a discount or subsidy?

[1uglydude]

Taxes from the purchase of fire arms and such goes towards Game Management if I remember right.

 

You're referring to Pittman-Robertson dollars, which are collected federally and then distributed to the individual states. While a "tax," it can hardly be said that they are Arizona taxpayer dollars going to AZGFD, and given their federal nature, could not seriously be used to argue that they subsidize resident tags.

[javihammer]

I stand by my "keys to the kingdom" reference in regard to youth tags. I agree youth tags should be discounted, but at five bucks a pop they are practically free. I also fail to understand why resident youth and non-resident youth are the exact same price (yes I understand it is that way currently)There are also no restrictions as to which hunts these tags can be used to apply for. If they were for youth hunts only, my views would be different, Since youth bonus points are the same as adult bonus points these kids can essentially be "used" to increase opportunity for their mommies and daddies on group applications. The powerpoint shows AZGFD needs more money, how is decreasing the cost of a youth tag to $5.00 going to fix that problem. I point this out as a father of three children under seven years of age.

 

This is kind of like the 20% bonus pass rule implemented a long time ago. It sounds good until you start to look at the impacts, the 20% bonus pass essentially turned some units into preference units for non-residents. The 20% bonus pass was dumb. The existing bonus point process at the time provided better incremental odds for applicants with the most points.

 

Another "feel good" but dumb rule is the one that allows fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers to sign tags over to kids. The language of the original rule allowed this with the person that signed over the tag to be in the field close to the child. The current language does not include that requirement. We now have many "straw man" applicants that have no interest in hunting that apply so that some kid can essentially move quicker through the line.

 

Mark my words, if the premium pricing thing flies the next step will be that they want to make bonus points specific to categories within a specific species. That will really screw things up. Hunters need to contact AZGFD and voice their concerns, this could get really ugly and hunters need to look past the "feel good" candy coating.

[rossislider]

Additionally, there is a reason we pay less as AZ residents. Because we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year.

 

Actually, we don't. AZGFD doesn't receive any taxpayer money for game management. It's all through licenses and tags. And, in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for the general fund.

 

As to only going up a few percentage points each year. Okay. With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%,

 

Let's not all forget that none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place. In other words, the Department had authority to raise tag prices even higher than this before the "simplification" bill. They're just doing it now because they can also change the licensing structure.

 

And to the guy complaining about they "keys to the Kingdom" license for resident and non-resident youth. Youth have always paid the same price for youth licenses, regardless of residency. Its in place, in part, to encourage new youth to try out our unique hunting experiences, but it also allows Arizonas resident fathers with children living out of state to bring their kids here for the same price as if they lived with the full time. I haven't made up my mind about all the other changes, but I support the $5 youth license 110%. They're our future hunters (and voters), and we should make it as easy for them as possible to get into the field and have a positive experience.

So let me see if I have this correct? You want to argue against my point that “we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year” and then state a few sentences later, “in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for (I believe you mean 'from') the general fund”. Thank you for arguing against my point by strengthening it. I never said how our tax money subsidizes AZGFD, just that it does.

 

Second, you suggest that “With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%”. They aren’t recommending a 20% increase, they are recommending a 37.4% increase for elk, 107.9% increase for deer and a 73.3% increase in the application fee.

 

As far as “none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place”. Since the federal government has no cap on how much of our income they could potentially tax, I suppose that means the federal cap on income taxes is 100%. So we should be glad if one day the federal government raises our income tax to only 99% since it is short of the cap of 100%?

 

As Obama might suggest I guess we hunters “aren’t paying our fair share” and “should pay just a little more”. You must be a democrat because yours is the most liberal arguments I have heard yet.

[1uglydude]

Additionally, there is a reason we pay less as AZ residents. Because we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year.

 

Actually, we don't. AZGFD doesn't receive any taxpayer money for game management. It's all through licenses and tags. And, in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for the general fund.

 

As to only going up a few percentage points each year. Okay. With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%,

 

Let's not all forget that none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place. In other words, the Department had authority to raise tag prices even higher than this before the "simplification" bill. They're just doing it now because they can also change the licensing structure.

 

And to the guy complaining about they "keys to the Kingdom" license for resident and non-resident youth. Youth have always paid the same price for youth licenses, regardless of residency. Its in place, in part, to encourage new youth to try out our unique hunting experiences, but it also allows Arizonas resident fathers with children living out of state to bring their kids here for the same price as if they lived with the full time. I haven't made up my mind about all the other changes, but I support the $5 youth license 110%. They're our future hunters (and voters), and we should make it as easy for them as possible to get into the field and have a positive experience.

So let me see if I have this correct? You want to argue against my point that “we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year” and then state a few sentences later, “in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for (I believe you mean 'from') the general fund”. Thank you for arguing against my point by strengthening it. I never said how our tax money subsidizes AZGFD, just that it does.

 

Second, you suggest that “With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%”. They aren’t recommending a 20% increase, they are recommending a 37.4% increase for elk, 107.9% increase for deer and a 73.3% increase in the application fee.

 

As far as “none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place”. Since the federal government has no cap on how much of our income they could potentially tax, I suppose that means the federal cap on income taxes is 100%. So we should be glad if one day the federal government raises our income tax to only 99% since it is short of the cap of 100%?

 

As Obama might suggest I guess we hunters “aren’t paying our fair share” and “should pay just a little more”. You must be a democrat because yours is the most liberal arguments I have heard yet.

 

No mistake...it's "for," not "from." The Legislature TAKES money (your tag dollars) from the Department to use in the General Fund. You obviously do a good job of staying up on the issues.

 

Also, your percentages reflect the pricing for the proposed "premium" tags. You know darn well that they represent only a fraction of the tags offerred, so the total revenue increase is much lower than what you represent.

 

As I said, other than the change for kids, I haven't made up my mind on the proposals yet. I was merely showing that there are other ways to look at it--trying to be a voice of reason. In turn, I get personally attacked? Nice.

 

What is it with this board lately? Anyone who trys to acknowledge that there is more than one way to look at things is shouted down by belligerant bullies.

[bonecollector]

Additionally, there is a reason we pay less as AZ residents. Because we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year.

 

Actually, we don't. AZGFD doesn't receive any taxpayer money for game management. It's all through licenses and tags. And, in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for the general fund.

 

As to only going up a few percentage points each year. Okay. With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%,

 

Let's not all forget that none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place. In other words, the Department had authority to raise tag prices even higher than this before the "simplification" bill. They're just doing it now because they can also change the licensing structure.

 

And to the guy complaining about they "keys to the Kingdom" license for resident and non-resident youth. Youth have always paid the same price for youth licenses, regardless of residency. Its in place, in part, to encourage new youth to try out our unique hunting experiences, but it also allows Arizonas resident fathers with children living out of state to bring their kids here for the same price as if they lived with the full time. I haven't made up my mind about all the other changes, but I support the $5 youth license 110%. They're our future hunters (and voters), and we should make it as easy for them as possible to get into the field and have a positive experience.

So let me see if I have this correct? You want to argue against my point that “we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year” and then state a few sentences later, “in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for (I believe you mean 'from') the general fund”. Thank you for arguing against my point by strengthening it. I never said how our tax money subsidizes AZGFD, just that it does.

 

Second, you suggest that “With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%”. They aren’t recommending a 20% increase, they are recommending a 37.4% increase for elk, 107.9% increase for deer and a 73.3% increase in the application fee.

 

As far as “none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place”. Since the federal government has no cap on how much of our income they could potentially tax, I suppose that means the federal cap on income taxes is 100%. So we should be glad if one day the federal government raises our income tax to only 99% since it is short of the cap of 100%?

 

As Obama might suggest I guess we hunters “aren’t paying our fair share” and “should pay just a little more”. You must be a democrat because yours is the most liberal arguments I have heard yet.

 

No mistake...it's "for," not "from." The Legislature TAKES money (your tag dollars) from the Department to use in the General Fund. You obviously do a good job of staying up on the issues.

 

Also, your percentages reflect the pricing for the proposed "premium" tags. You know darn well that they represent only a fraction of the tags offerred, so the total revenue increase is much lower than what you represent.

 

As I said, other than the change for kids, I haven't made up my mind on the proposals yet. I was merely showing that there are other ways to look at it--trying to be a voice of reason. In turn, I get personally attacked? Nice.

 

What is it with this board lately? Anyone who trys to acknowledge that there is more than one way to look at things is shouted down by belligerant bullies.

 

I agree. These personal attacks are getting old!

[rossislider]

Additionally, there is a reason we pay less as AZ residents. Because we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year.

 

Actually, we don't. AZGFD doesn't receive any taxpayer money for game management. It's all through licenses and tags. And, in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for the general fund.

 

As to only going up a few percentage points each year. Okay. With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%,

 

Let's not all forget that none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place. In other words, the Department had authority to raise tag prices even higher than this before the "simplification" bill. They're just doing it now because they can also change the licensing structure.

 

And to the guy complaining about they "keys to the Kingdom" license for resident and non-resident youth. Youth have always paid the same price for youth licenses, regardless of residency. Its in place, in part, to encourage new youth to try out our unique hunting experiences, but it also allows Arizonas resident fathers with children living out of state to bring their kids here for the same price as if they lived with the full time. I haven't made up my mind about all the other changes, but I support the $5 youth license 110%. They're our future hunters (and voters), and we should make it as easy for them as possible to get into the field and have a positive experience.

So let me see if I have this correct? You want to argue against my point that “we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year” and then state a few sentences later, “in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for (I believe you mean 'from') the general fund”. Thank you for arguing against my point by strengthening it. I never said how our tax money subsidizes AZGFD, just that it does.

 

Second, you suggest that “With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%”. They aren’t recommending a 20% increase, they are recommending a 37.4% increase for elk, 107.9% increase for deer and a 73.3% increase in the application fee.

 

As far as “none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place”. Since the federal government has no cap on how much of our income they could potentially tax, I suppose that means the federal cap on income taxes is 100%. So we should be glad if one day the federal government raises our income tax to only 99% since it is short of the cap of 100%?

 

As Obama might suggest I guess we hunters “aren’t paying our fair share” and “should pay just a little more”. You must be a democrat because yours is the most liberal arguments I have heard yet.

 

No mistake...it's "for," not "from." The Legislature TAKES money (your tag dollars) from the Department to use in the General Fund. You obviously do a good job of staying up on the issues.

 

As I said, other than the change for kids, I haven't made up my mind on the proposals yet. I was merely showing that there are other ways to look at it--trying to be a voice of reason. In turn, I get personally attacked? Nice.

 

What is it with this board lately? Anyone who trys to acknowledge that there is more than one way to look at things is shouted down by belligerant bullies.

1. Either way it really doesn't matter. Tax payer money is going to the AZGFD!

 

2. You are welcome to your opinions and I welcome them from you. I rather enjoy the discussion and argument and don't mean bully. I apologize that it came across that way. My reason for the liberal comment was that I think that there is way to much hypocrisy anymore in these arguments. To many people claim conservative ideals but make liberal arguments when they don't agree with someone. I just want to make certain people recognize this.

[1uglydude]

1. Either way it really doesn't matter. Tax payer money is going at AZGFD!

 

No, it doesn't. Tag and license money gets taken to the general fund to pay for other state services, but the money doesn't move the other way.

[Jcubed]

Class is in session

[rossislider]

1. Either way it really doesn't matter. Tax payer money is going at AZGFD!

 

No, it doesn't. Tag and license money gets taken to the general fund to pay for other state services, but the money doesn't move the other way.

Feel free to review the attached document. You will find several examples of tax money going to the AZGFD. As with many other things, the AZGFD would prefer the average person not know that they do receive tax dollars. So, like politicians they make cleaver statements like "The Arizona Game and Fish Department does not receive general funds from the State of Arizona. But here are a couple of examples from the attached document:

Source of Revenue: Monies received through intergovernmental and interagency service agreements.

Source of Revenue: Collections from local governments for the Urban Fishing Program, transfers from the state Risk Management Fund, proceeds from the charitable auction of bighorn sheep tags, and private donations from private contributors.

fis(1).pdf