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.
Steve Lohr says:
September 11, 2012 at 1:18 am
It isn’t often that I get my back up about this stuff but when they start messing with the money spent by hunters and fishermen, it gets my attention. I lived in California for 17 years. I left 20 years ago because I saw the writing on the wall. Best move I ever made.
____________________
One can hardly drive anywhere, here in Oklahoma City, without seeing Caiifornia license plates. They tell me it’s worse in the “fashionable” places, like Denver. Californication.
On a recent short drive across part of the OKC metro, I counted 8 construction cranes.
Elsewhere in the city, an 850′ skyscraper was recently completed and all of the other construction “downtown” makes navigation an aggravation.
To the elected leaders of CA:
Is anyone even building a chicken coop in California?
The climate in California, for whatever reason, has been changing. These changes have impacted fish and game and other wildlife. So, why shouldn’t some part of the license fee go toward studying this?
Matt: I think your point is basically correct, but if this license fee had traditionally been only used for fish and game issues and was now being diverted to something unrelated and even frivolous, hunters and fishers would be expected to object. (As I stated above I don’t think a changing climate is unrelated to fish and game issues.)
“For me, killing anything for a laugh is what Americans did, no matter how it’s dressed up.”
Jim B, unless you are 100% vegetarian, your hypocrisy falls on deaf ears here. Hunters will eat the meat from the animals they harvest. No different then if you get it plastic wrapped from the meat department at your local grocer. Dead is dead, whether it was brought on with a smile or from low wage workers at a packing plant.
This looks like something organized by an ICLEI (an Agenda 21 organization of the United Nations Environmental Program). Chico has one but, unless it is disguising itself by another name, I don’t see Chico ICLEI on the list of ‘stakeholders’. The CA LCC logo with its interlocking (sort of) circles might be a mask.
the religion of government. Facts we don’t need no stinking facts, we just want you to do as we say.
mbw says:
September 11, 2012 at 6:16 am
mbw says:
September 11, 2012 at 6:20 am
The use of taxes and fees are spelled out in the taxing authority document. If that document defines the intended use of the funds, that is what the funds must be used for. Most municipalities have a general revenue fund that is used for operating expenses and all other revenue is designated for specific things. Unfortunately at the state and federal level things can become clouded as most of the money collected goes to the general fund. However, if a specific fee is collected from a subset of the population for services provided, that revenue must be used to provide those services. Now, politicians know they can sneak just about anything by the population because most people just don’t care enough to take any meaningful action. So once again, the blame ultimately falls on us for allowing them to do what they do.
Matt’s random coherent utterance of September 10, 2012 at 11:04 pm:
“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”.”
And the CAGW crowd wants to address perceived problems how? Why by instituting new taxes and regulation on a global scale. Long after the AGW hoax has faded into history the taxes and regulations would still be there to enrich the lives of an elite privledged few who have moved on to other more timely crises that require still more control.
“A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.” T. Jefferson, US Declaration of Independence
Live Free!
Matt/Jim R
Remind me again which bridge you live under?
If it wasn’t for us “killing things just for the fun of it” Americans, you Germans/Euros would either be living under the Kaiser or Hitler (I am actually surprised it took this long for Godwin to poke his head out…sorry it was me…).
The fact that “Americans” get so pissed off about where our government spends our money, is one of the reasons we ARE Americans…we believe government should answer to the people not the other way around.
I can’t speak for other states, but in Oklahoma, Fish & Game takes no money from the general fund. It is solely supported by hunting and fishing license fees.
****
Matt says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:04 pm
****
Your problem is that you think the people should work for the government, not the other way around. Thanks for demonstrating this perversion so clearly. No wonder so many Europeans fled Europe…
In Oregon, there are folks in tucked away counties who, even though are licensed to hunt, are not allowed to hunt in areas they can get to. Why? Because they don’t put in for tags in places their budget does not allow them to get to and are lucky if they pull a tag in an area they can get to. In this economy, these folks depend on game animal meat. What do you think they should eat instead? Rats?
I was raised in my grandparents’ foster home. Back then, foster care was essentially something you did out of the goodness of your heart with little outside funding. My grandparents kept their brood fed with game and garden. We ate well. Under the current restrictions, we would have had to depend on foodstamps.
Let’s get America back to where it belongs, in the hands of its people.
walbright@dfg.ca.gov
I just sent an email with telling them my displeasure…..
Fools and their money….No, wait…Fools and our money…
Duncan said on September 11, 2012 at 4:39 am:
Feudalism Revived. All wildlife belongs to the Lords, you must gain the permission of the Lords to hunt or fish or trap, and pay whatever taxes the Lords require to grant such indulgences.
Likewise you are not to question what the Lords do with the taxes they have ordered paid, it is your duty to pay them to the Lords regardless.
So be a good loyal serf and don’t question the actions of the Lords. And willingly pay the Lords whatever tax they shall demand for their permission to emit carbon dioxide.
So was the Kaiser’s “champagne tax” the original carbon dioxide tax”? And the only correctly labelled one? Bubbles the mind!
Beng Says:Your problem is that you think the people should work for the government, not the other way around. Thanks for demonstrating this perversion so clearly. No wonder so many Europeans fled Europe…
That may have been true in the past, but many Americans these days are trying to get out and emigrating to Europe. It’s tough for them to get in, which I think is a bit ungrateful of us, but most villages in the UK now have their collection of American immigrants happily settling down in their chosen country. The UK is a popular destination because of the language and relatively high standard of living, but many on the political right in the UK are pressing for no more as they feel we have enough population as it is. Perhaps we could swap populations, those who enjoy low taxes, but don’t mind poor services could go to the States, while those who don’t mind paying taxes but want to see the results in a good welfare state can come here. By the way we have fishing licenses but no hunting etc.
Go Home says:
September 11, 2012 at 6:35 am
“For me, killing anything for a laugh is what Americans did, no matter how it’s dressed up.”
Jim B, unless you are 100% vegetarian, your hypocrisy falls on deaf ears here. Hunters will eat the meat from the animals they harvest. No different then if you get it plastic wrapped from the meat department at your local grocer. Dead is dead, whether it was brought on with a smile or from low wage workers at a packing plant.
Good Lord, Are you saying these hunters eat Wolves, Big cats, Bears and suchlike? Things are worse than I thought. By the way harvesting bears and wolves seems to be an odd description. Apart from trawling I had always seen a harvest as a result of ploughing. sowing reaping and mowing, something that farmers did. I have this really strange picture of our Church having it’s harvest supper with dead bears and wolves all over the altar. Maybe it’s a language thing. I agree though that I would rather eat wild game any day than factory farmed chickens or beef from feedlots. Pheasant are the ultimate in free range chickens.
kadaka beat me to identifying Matt as a “serf”.Not to mention being a whiny little bootlicker.
I guess generations of living under a semi-feudal system have bred the love of freedom out of these servile little drones.
Dang, Alec, you could’ve fixed a lot of road and bridges with 100 billion. So what happened to the fuel and road use taxes to pay for road & bridge construction? How much of that got diverted to warmists? Anyone know?
SpaghettiO is all smiles about getting us into more debt to fix roads.
Diverting money from where it was intended to special interest projects has been a bipartisan sport, unfortunately. Arrrrrrggghhhh!
Lancifer says:
September 11, 2012 at 8:39 am
kadaka beat me to identifying Matt as a “serf”.Not to mention being a whiny little bootlicker.
I guess generations of living under a semi-feudal system have bred the love of freedom out of these servile little drones.
And to add insult to injury they have a higher standard of living, lower unemployment and a higher lifestyle satisfaction index. It’s outrageous and should not be allowed. They have it all wrong.
Both Dingle-Johnson and Pittman Robertson federal excise tax laws prohibit state legislatures from diverting any wildlife game cash funds to projects other than wildlife management. I would guess that California’s use of those funds for climate research would probably fall under those federal acts. Although I disagree with that use, I doubt that the US Fish and Wildlife Service who monitor the states for compliance would object.
So Matt thinks the state has the RIGHT to do anything they want with TAX money. Yikes! Even Karl Marx was more subtle than that. Perhaps we are moving along “The Road to Serfdom” much faster than I thought.
I just finished an Alaskan cruise, awesome. The US National Parks Service sure pushes the man caused global warming issue related to glaciers on the cruise. They have related displays set up at all their venues and the subject is included with their on board lectures. What was interesting is that a couple of people, hardly a survey, were not buying it. That being said most people where most likely taking in this one sided view.
I do wonder though if the Forest Service is just pushing this issue to jump on the gravy train?
It’s not a TAX, it’s a FEE. Big difference. A fee is not fungible. Well, not as fungible as a tax.