This is excerpts from a column that appeared Sunday by Chico Enterprise-Record editor David Little. To say he’s annoyed would be an understatement, especially when he titles it ‘Another startling episode of ‘Your Tax Dollars At Work’ – Anthony
By DAVID LITTLE
I fish and I hunt, which means I send about $200 a year to the state for hunting and fishing licenses, tags, stamps and report cards.
Add my wife, daughter and son to the tab, and our house pays probably $500 a year to the state.
…
It’s a minor annoyance, however, as long as you know that money is going to a good cause. I’d like my money to be spent on increasing the fishing and hunting opportunities for all Californians, and managing fish and game populations so future generations can enjoy the same hunting and fishing traditions, as my children already do.
Money spent by anglers and hunters should benefit fishing and hunting, simple as that.
That’s why I was annoyed Wednesday to see a news release from the state Department of Fish and Game with the subject line: “DFG Launches Climate College to Better Understand, Address Climate Change.”
I learned a lot from this earnest news release. For example, I didn’t know the DFG had a “Climate Science and Renewable Energy Branch.” I always thought the DFG was focused on fish and game, critters and habitat, not windmills and snowpacks. The state has other departments to study that, right?
This Climate College, the DFG proudly noted in its press release, is being launched “to increase climate literacy.” (Huh?) …The release promised “lectures, presentations, online discussions, reading assignments and a final project.” The reward for completing the course? A “certificate of completion.” And “the opportunity to show their final project to DFG leadership.” Oh joy.
…
The release went on to say: “The college is another initiative that keeps California at the forefront of climate-related planning and action.” OK, maybe there’s a place for that in state government. I don’t think it’s the Department of Fish and Game (emphasis on fish and game).
…
When Californians forked over $52.9 million last year for fishing licenses and stamps, and $22.7 million for hunting licenses and tags — a grand total of more than $75 million — I’m betting they didn’t think it would be used to help develop a Climate College or to fund the salary of a person called “Climate Change Adviser.”
==================================================
You can read the press release from DFG here:
DFG Launches Climate College to Better Understand, Address Climate Change
You can visit the “Climate College” here: www.dfg.ca.gov/Climate_and_Energy/Climate_Change/Climate_College/ .
Look at who is involved, its like an episode of Government Gone Wild:
DFG Climate Training Stakeholder Working Group
Not content to have a California Climate College, they have even bigger plans:
The USFWS National Conservation Training Center will roll out the National Climate Academy in October 2012. In the spirit of collaboration DFG is working in partnership with the steering committee to coordinate training activities and materials between the two courses. Both courses compliment each other and build on the need for increased communication and collaboration around climate change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Religion.
Kurt in Switzerland
Don’t even get me started on the hated Adventure Pass.
What a load of tosh.
And when you buy bread, the TAX should be spent on supporting the growing of more agricultural products, and when you buy a gun or ammunition, the TAX should be spent on buying tanks, stealth figthers and making war in general bla-bla-bla. How well reasoned, isn’t it? The state has the right to do whatever they seem fit with TAX money. Is this really news to anyone? Why would anyone write an article about it, and why would you repost it – only because it somehow got the word “climate” in there? No matter how nonsensical it is? TAX can be spent on anything. In Germany, we have the champagne TAX – it was introduced by the Kaiser to finance the war fleet – one Reichsmark a bottle (later a DM = 0.5 EUR), and we still pay it, even though there is no more Kaiser and we are currently not building a new fleet… just my favourite example amongst the gazillion taxes that “don’t serve their purpose”.
But it is still a befitting example for Americans. You know, if you happen to live in a country that has military presence in +170 countries of some 190 in total, then that money got to come from SOMEWHERE. You spend more money on the military than all those other +190 together (still bitching it is somehow not enough…) — but here you are bemoaning that a few bucks for your hunting license are spent on climate research or whatever. You got other, REAL problems, but the fact that you post this nonsense shows that you are oblivious to them.
The reasons to leave keep piling up, don’t they? Get out while you still have the chance.
The inmates are running the asylum in my home state.
Make sure you vote for that tax increase our senile governor wants this November.
“Thou shalt not question the consensus nor obstruct it’s Holy Quest… Your contributions are duly noted in the book of penitence…” Religion not allowed in government? Except for GREEN religion. Yeesh.
“Both courses compliment each other…”
It would probably be better if the two courses were to “complement” one another, but, hey, this is the post-normal climate world where pal review reigns …..
Anyone who has ever dealt with the California Department of Fish and Game to try and pass “environmental review” to permit an energy project will not be surprised at this latest outrage. Of all the governmental agencies I ever had to deal with, DFG was the least honorable and most politically driven by a wide margin.
What’s needed is a fishing and hunting strike statewide and let the politicos make up the difference out of their pockets, preferably from their election funds kitty. You know who they are so kick them out of office as many as possible.
Matt says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Blah blah blah….”The state has the right to do whatever they seem fit with TAX money.”
==========================================================================
Well Matt, it is thinking like that which was cause for the existence of the USA. Please stay in Germany where such statist idealogy is welcome. First of all learn the difference between a tax, and a fee, and then begin to understand why it is rational to place limitations on government powers of spending. after reading, (and getting an education) about the ideals on which the USA was founded consider anotherpost and then consider putting in a link to your off topic assertions on military spending. Strange how a european whines like a little girl about US military spending, and then begs the US to deal with a little problem like Lybia.
Wild? You ain’t heard nothing yet.
Get a job as a government lifeguard in California.
$200,000 per anum and chicks for free!
http://bit.ly/Q9SEG8
they should be buying snow ploughs for the next ice age
If license monies are collected as tax, I suppose the government can use as they see fit. If they are collected as fees I would expect them to go to support the activity for which they are being collected.
Luckily I don’t live in California. Not that Connecticut handles its money much better. 🙁
Kind of like watching a developing train wreck when you’re watching a State commit suicide like this.
It’s right out of ‘Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy’, replete with ‘management buzzwords’.
Money chasing the Myth that is Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change/Disruption/Hysteria.
When is California going to get a reality check? If ever?
Matt says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:04 pm
What a load of tosh.
And when you buy bread, the TAX should be spent on supporting the growing of more agricultural products, and when you buy a gun or ammunition, the TAX should be spent on…
I couldn’t disagree more. Tax bread so the Government can use that tax to support growing more “agricultural products”? How about forgetting the tax, forgetting the subsidies, and letting the market decide the price of bread? Too crazy for some, I guess. As far as I’m concerned, when I buy bread it has nothing – I mean absolutely nothing – to do with the government. I shouldn’t be taxed at all for buying anything. I shouldn’t have to buy a license – aka the Government’s permission – to fish, I shouldn’t have to buy the Government’s permission to watch TV… I could go on with my gripes over Governmental control and theft from the people. But if you accept that these taxes are right then you’ve given up your right to complain about how those taxes are spent. It’s like complaining to a thief that after he squandered your money away on booze instead of something sensible, when you should be saying “That’s MY money, you thieving b@***ard!”
Matt,
You obviously don’t understand how the system works in common law based countries in the Anglosphere, where democracy and limited government have existed for centuries (though are now under threat).
In our countries the power of governments to impose “taxes” is subject to strict controls. They differ from country to country but are designed to ensure that a “tax” is properly approved according to special procedures that don’t apply to other laws. When money is confiscated from citizens otherwise than by a “tax” (or a fine or penalty for some wrongdoing) it is supposed to be done only on the basis that the citizen gets something in return for it. There may not be highly precise rules about exactly what is a “tax” and what isn’t, or what counts as a citizen getting something in return for having their money taken away other than by a “tax”. That’s in part because a good deal of our system of government operates by convention rather than by express rules.
It may well be that in California it is not strictly illegal for money coerced for a hunting or fishing “licence” to be used for “climate college”. However, to anyone who lives in democracies which have the benefit of those long standing freedoms there is something obnoxious about being made to pay a “licence” fee just to do something and then find out that the money is being applied to fund something so far removed from any benefit to the payer of the licence fee.
Matt
Maybe Germany would have been better off if our military hadn’t invaded in WWII?
Anyway, here is the description of what the fees are SUPPOSED to go to (pay specific attention to the last line):
California law establishes fishing and hunting license fees each year for the DFG. The base fee for sport fishing licenses established in Fish and Game Code Section 7149 and the fees for validations and most report cards are established in other sections of the FGC or Title 14, of the California Code of Regulations.
The FGC requires license fees adjust in responce to increases (or decreases) in costs of goods and services using an index called the Implicit Price Deflator (Fish and Game Code Section 713). This index is a gauge of the change in the cost of goods and services from year to year.
For example, as hatchery, law enforcement and wildlife management costs have increased, license fees needed to increase to keep pace with these rising costs. Essentially, license fees adjust up and down to compensate for inflation or deflation. If license fees did not adjust for inflation, then funding for fish and wildlife management and protection would actually decrease because the buying power of a dollar has declined over the years.
Generally, the cost of goods and services increases at a fairly steady, slow rate. About two to three percent per year is common. In recent years, some costs have increased dramatically, particularly the cost of fuel. Because of this, the cost of goods and services jumped approximately 6.19% and 2009 license fees increased accordingly. If the cost of goods and services were to decrease, then license fees would actually decrease the same percentage.
Although fishing and hunting license fees have increased throughout the years, the increase ensures that the DFG has adequate funding to manage California’s diverse fish and wildlife resources and provide the public with enjoyable fishing and hunting experiences.
Hmmmmm…..I dont see a Climate College listed in there anywhere…do you?
This IS California you are talking about. The state that should have “State of Insanity” on its licence plates. The state that has 12% of the US population and one third of the welfare recipients. The state that has to find masses of new sinecures every election for the Senators and Members who can’t stand for re-election. The state that on some definitions is technically insolvent.
What do you expect?
The warming alarmists got a hundred billion dollars in federal taxes and its not enough. It only kickstarted The Blob, which will now consume every resource. After all, it has great MORAL URGENCY on its side (regardless of how fraudulent) and hence is simply more important than mere human or animal concerns.
Matt: “You know, if you happen to live in a country that has military presence in +170 countries of some 190 in total, then that money got to come from SOMEWHERE.”
Obviously it comes from hunting and fishing licenses. Which doesn’t seem near as out of place as the Bund keeping about the Kaiser’s Flotilla tax on French flotsam. But good luck to you when elections are next held.
@Matt…
I sort of agree with you. European countries should be left to fend for themsleves. Let them provide for their own securith, because we sure as hell can’t afford to do it for them anymore.
Governments raise taxes for all sorts of things from various different sources, so spending hunting and fishing license money on other things is no surprise.
The point is that California is bankrupt because of the incredible waste of money spent by dismal management and unscrupulous politicians on trendy green programs, armies of bureaucrats, needless subsidies and croneyism.
So this is just another instance of the above – how long will it be before this ‘Climate College’ is assigned to the dustbin of history? My guess is around 3-5 years. California still has to axe a lot of pointless expenditure before it has any hope of rescuing itself from its present financial mire. When they, or the administrators, start to get serious, then this ‘Climate College’ will be one of the first things to be scrapped.
So this returns me to the point made in this article: Why not spend the money, raised from licenses and permits, on something useful and tangible like preserving California’s fishing and hunting resources for future generations? The problem is this: It is not trendy, nor green, and does not require an army of bureaucrats to administer.
September 10, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Matt says:
———————————————————
I’m not privy as to how you are taxed in Deutschland, Matt, but in many other countries where a licence fee, levy, or tax is raised by a government agency that is not the Tax Department, there is a stated reason for its collection and use. Consolidating it to general revenue and spending it at will is an abuse of the licence, levy or tax.
[snip . . OT . . but interesting enough to post on Tips & Notes . . kbmod]