But Their Tags Have Skyrocketed!
By Jerry Springer
I initially sent an e-mail to Sonke Mastrup, Deputy Director of the Wildlife and Inland Fisheries Division with the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), asking how the DFG could justify a 700% increase. The response was there was much more to the story about the pig tag fee increase.
At the Turkey Expo held at the end of February in Fair Oaks, California, I had the opportunity to discuss the fee increases with Mastrup. The pig tag increase was the number one topic on my mind and obviously that of some of our readers who had e-mailed me complaining about it.
The Increase
First, let’s cover some of the resident hunter fee increases which will become effective July 1, 2004.
• Resident Hunting License up $1.50 from $29.75 to $31.25
• Junior Hunting License up $1 from $7.25 to $8.25
• New Individual Resident Pig Tag $15
The book of five resident pig tags will no longer be sold, its cost was $8.75 per booklet. As a comparison, if the tags were still to be sold in booklets of five tags, the price increase would be $66.25 more than the old 5-tag booklet. Guides fees, lifetime licenses and packages are also increasing, but the pig tag fee increase is way out ahead of everything else as far as the percentage increase.
While none of us want to pay any more for things than we must, the hunting license increase of $1.50, in light of the budget crisis in California, will probably not stop many from buying their license this year. On the other hand, the pig tag increase is harder to swallow because of the percentage it jumps. Yet if we look at it from the cost of a big game tag, the $15 per tag fee is not really out of line when you look at $20 and $25 for the first and second deer tags.
Also, the vast majority of people buying a pig-tag booklet only used one tag. Pig hunters in California average less than one pig per hunter per year. If looked from that angle, the new fee structure will cost $15 for the one tag compared to $8.75 for the booklet of five — an increase for most hunters of $6.25.
I believe the real problem for hunters is the rapid increase in the cost for pig tags, which had been so low that the fee hardly covered the cost to print and handle them.
I have heard the arguments that there shouldn’t be pig tags in the first place because some landowners believe pigs are too destructive and are just pests. Some people now believe that because the tags will be $15 each, the landowners having a depredation problem won’t have people buy the tags, they’ll just shoot the pigs and let them lie.
Triple Threat to the DFG
This article is not intended to be about having pig tags or not. What I wanted to learn from Mastrup was what was the thinking behind the increases. He began by explaining that there are three items that are affecting the fee increases and DFG service cutbacks.
The first and most obvious item is the budget crisis that exists within California’s state government. Second is the decline in license sales, and the third is the state hiring freeze. Each is a major problem by itself but when all three are combined, you have nothing short of a near catastrophic disaster for those in charge of managing the state’s wildlife and providing recreational opportunities for hunters and fishermen/women.
Mastrup explained that the budget crisis in California has resulted in a loss of $24 million in General Fund money (a recent update makes that $28 million) to the DFG. This means $24 million disappearing from the Department’s budget. Mastrup contends that the DFG is no different than a lot of businesses, meaning it also faces the increases in the costs of doing business in California — costs like higher gasoline prices for its vehicles, increased workman’s compensation insurance, tighter regulations on how water waste disposal must be handled at hatcheries, increased cost for mosquito abatement programs at refuges, etc.
Unlike some businesses that are able to move out of state when faced with increased costs, however, the DFG does not have that option. The Department has to figure out how to live with those increased costs and continue to function as efficiently as possible.
The second item facing the Department is a continuing trend of declining license sales. While fishing licenses in recent years are only slightly decreasing, hunting licenses have had a steeper decline. The revenue from these sources is declining, but the costs associated with those programs are not — they continue to increase, again the costs of doing business.
What concerns Mastrup even more than these first two problems is the loss of knowledge which is resulting due to the hiring freeze which the DFG has been under for the last two and one-half years. State policy eliminates any vacant position if it has not been filled in six months, so when the DFG loses someone to retirement or other reasons, the position can’t be filled because of the freeze, then in six months the position is lost completely. During this period the DFG has lost 430 positions. This is approximately 20% of its staff. DFG’s warden training academy has been closed and at the present time there are just 230 wardens on duty to cover all of California, including the marine patrol.
The loss of knowledge from veteran wardens and biologists is not something that can just be put in a book so new hires in the future can pick it up and be up to speed. It requires a mentor program of new hires working with the longtime employees before the older ones retire from the Department. Mastrup believes these longtime employees have very valuble information and knowledge, and fears it is being lost forever.
Why the Increases?
At the end of each fiscal year, the Department is required to have a balanced budget. For the next budget year the Wildlife Preservation Fund is estimated to have a $4 million shortage. The Wildlife Preservation Fund is the fund that receives its revenue from sources like your hunting and fishing licenses.
Last fall the DFG was given three days by the Department of Finance to come up with a plan to make up the $4 million shortfall. The increases in fees will be used to make up the shortage — most from the increases in fishing and hunting license fees, but the pig tag increase will also help.
The DFG has long thought the pig tags were too low in comparison to other big game tags, such as those for deer. Department personnel knew the increase would not be popular and calculated that sales would drop approximately 10%. With the current fiscal crisis the DFG finds itself in, its revenues must be increased by raising fees or more cutbacks in programs and personnel will be inevitable. The Department is really between a rock and a hard place, and hunters will be affected no matter what decisions are made.
After my discussion with Mastrup, I better understood the problems the DFG is facing. Later, however, I thought about the waste in state government that Governor Schwarzenegger talked about during his campaign. Does this waste occur also within the DFG?
Weeks later I had another chance to meet with DFG officials and asked the new DFG director, Ryan Broddrick, that very question as well as one about why DFG funds are spent on plant or lizard studies instead of on areas of interest to hunters. Broddrick, along with Mastrup, stated they were reviewing the entire budget, especially areas that may have duplication that could be eliminated. On the subject of monies spent on plant and lizard studies, however, they pointed out that most state and federal funding comes with restrictions, many of which prevent the DFG from diverting funds spent on studies about lizards and such, to programs like deer management.
So now you know why pig tags will be flying higher, and it’s not because the DFG wants to hear hunters squeal, though it surely will!!!
Copyright © 2004 J & D Outdoor Communications. All rights reserved.