CA DF&G Game Warden stamp for 2010

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/WardenStamp/

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/WardenStamp/

"All proceeds will be deposited into a special account and used to provide important tools for the 385 fish and game wardens statewide"

I dunno... if it's anything like the striped bass stamp on the licenses :-\"

[Mike R]

I am completely for giving wardens more money, but completely against giving CDFG (state) any more money than I legally have to.

Maybe next time I see a warden, I'll give him a 5-spot and cut out the bureaucrat.

See ya,
Mike

[Bob Laskodi]

Yeppers, because all Arnie will do is "borrow" the money from it's intended use/program and put it in the general fund to be wasted on other things. That's where most of the stamp money is going now, "borrowed" into the general fund. Now, when is Arnie going to repay the loans???????

[Frank Alessio]

Heard yesterday at work they do not know where the Steelhead Punch card money went, but it is gone.....Frank

[Mike O]

At least the Bay-Delta Stamp has gone away...YEEEEEHAAAAWWWW!! The idea that Redding is in the Delta???

[OceanSunfish]

I am completely for giving wardens more money, but completely against giving CDFG (state) any more money than I legally have to.

Maybe next time I see a warden, I'll give him a 5-spot and cut out the bureaucrat.

See ya,
Mike

I actually like the idea of personal and on-the-spot contribution. $5 to $10 a day directly from fisherman in the field would buy "lunch". Every little bit helps, you know.

[Mike R]

It would have to be "donation". Otherwise it could be a bribe.

Mike

[Darian]

Just finished reading an article about the disconnect between demand for public services and the refusal to authorize payment of revenues for those services.... Reminded me of this thread. Since it is a fact that revenues have fallen far behind expenditures in all levels of government, I believe that there'll be more solicitations by and for voluntary donations/payments to supplement their activities. Unless these donations/payments are tax deductible, there's not much chance for success here. :neutral:

I know this is heresy, but lots of public agencies actually could contract/sell their skill sets/services above what is mandated if authorized. Quite a few former employees of the agencies I worked for left state service either for consulting or working jobs for private contractors/non-profits/vendors. Along the line of reorganizations, I kinda think the wardens at DFG would be better off if they were absorbed by the CHP (similar to the way the State Police were many years ago).... They could be brought up to date on Peace Officer training and maintained in a separate division dealing with F&G violations but could cross lines to support other activities of CHP. The resources available would be much higher in number/quality.... 8)

Oh well,.... Not much in the way of new thinking going on at the legislature or the Guvs office these days.

[rtb215]

I totally agree with Darian, "Grandfather" them in with CHP. This would give the a much deserved pay raise and increase their numbers which we desperately need.

[Bob Laskodi]

That's exactly how they do it in AK. AK State Troopers (the AK version of the CHP) has responsibility for law enforcement including fish & game laws. Works really nicely as I always see a bunch of them while fishing. In fact, I've seen more AK State Troopers enforcing F&G laws while fishing in Alaska than I have DFG Wardens while fishing in CA over the past 50 years. And that's really sad because I only fish AK a couple weeks a year!!!!

[Mike McKenzie]

AB 1442 mandated a number of provisions regarding the Department of Fish and Game’s activities including a new law that permits the Department to offer a stamp to generate funds to ‘support Game Wardens.’ Sales of the $5 stamp will start in 2010. Purchase of the stamp is not required to go hunting or fishing, but rather is a voluntary donation.

The department’s wardens face life threatening situations at salary and benefit levels far less than the state’s other law enforcement personnel. Given the decline in the number of wardens over the past twenty years, this new stamp sounds like a positive step in a long overdue direction.

However, when one tracks the agency’s recent fiscal history, the longstanding under funding of the California’s Department of Fish and Game becomes obvious. The stamp provision is at best a band-aid, and at worst, a ploy to foist a “feel good” idea on to the shoulders of California’s hunting and fishing community. At the same time the Governor’s Administration continues the fiscal emasculation of a department that has become a “Paper Tiger”.

The agency has suffered some $40 million dollars of staggering budget cuts during Governor Schwarzenegger’s administration. Many of the DFG’s mandates to protect the public’s fish and wildlife resources simply cannot be carried out due to insufficient funds. The chronic under funding of the agency has failed to allow the public’s fishery resources to be managed at sustainable population levels. If you follow the money, it becomes clear why our salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, striped bass, and other fisheries have declined to historic lows while the habitat they need has been sacrificed to fuel private business and our state’s population growth.

The warden force is now so small and under funded it cannot provide the necessary level of deterrent to properly protect the fish and wildlife resources from illegal harvest. The state has lost many hundreds of million dollars worth these valuable public owned resources to poachers who profit at the public’s expense.

We have nothing but admiration for the dedication and sacrifices that our Game Wardens make on a daily basis. They are some of the most at risk law enforcement officers in this State, yet our Governor and Legislature will not provide them the same pay and benefits as other enforcement officers in the State. Of greater concern is the fact that the Governor has not budgeted funding to increase the number of wardens to provide the workforce necessary to get the job done!

Our objections to this $5 voluntary stamp stems from the fact that IT WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM caused by the failure of the state to provide the necessary funding to properly run the agency’s enforcement division. Because the public owns the fish and wildlife life, the public should play a major role in funding the enforcement of the laws that protect this valuable natural resource heritage.

The people of California must make a decision soon on whether or not they want free flowing waters populated with fish and wild lands populated with the wildlife. These valuable resources have been a historic part of our inheritance from previous generations but they are disappearing all too rapidly! Your support of CSPA with tax deductible donations will enable our continued engagement of those who make the legislative decisions regarding the Department of Fish & Game!

Mike

[Fly Guy Dave]

I like the idea of making the DFG and the CHP one unit, like in other states, but one problem that I see is funding. I've heard that DFG wardens get about half the salary of your average CHP. So my estimation is that if they rolled the 385 wardens into the CHP, they'd have to pay 'em more, say $40,000 more a year. At that rate, those 385 new CHP officers would cost 15.4 million. In this time of lean state budgets, I don't see that happening. :sad:

--FlyGuy (Dave)

[steelie]

Game wardens are members of Cal-Pers, they get a good retirement with probably life time health benefits. This is a scam, they are union members. If they go into CHP, they get the same or even better benefits. CHP has been trying to get 4% @ 50 of their gross salary for retirement pay for the last 10 years.

[Darian]

So,.... For you, Steelie, reorganization's a cost/benefit issue based on a "scam". Since I proposed this in my prior post, ....to my knowledge, there's nothing Official on this from the state, I'm wondering if you think I'm going to benefit from this "scam" :question: Maybe you even think I'm a Game Warden.... 8)

I do share everyones concerns over increased costs but your statement indicates you oppose the reorg idea without considering much beyond the obvious (negative feelings about unions and PERS :neutral: ). Kinda makes it look like your priorities don't involve conservation issues to me.... :confused:

My side; If wardens were absorbed into the CHP and brought up to Peace Officer standards, they could be used for much more than than their current status allows and the cost increase would probably be offset by the increased potential for regulation/prosecuting poachers, etc., 8) Or, do you disagree with that outcome :question:

In this day and age (....of declining everything), it's no longer acceptable to just deny everything as some type of "scam". How about proposing a solution of your own for consideration :question:

[Dugger]

very little doubt should exist in the minds of flyfishers that have tracked the expenditures of the dfg stamp funds. they are the first to be put on hold during a financial crisis and that is when they are most desperately needed.

don't be duped by the good intentions of this stamp. let it ride for a year and see what percentage of the stamp revenues actually go toward the primary issues - pay parity with other law enforcement and putting more wardens in the field.

had to laugh with Darian's reply - there is always an easy solution to every problem....; neat, plausible and wrong - merging the wardens under chp. wardens are under dfg because they need to focus on f&g laws, not human-on-human crime, transportation crimes, drugs, and the like. better suggestion is to look at states that have made substantial improvement in warden effectiveness in the last decade. smart money is the florida model.

[Darian]

Dugger,.... The political and fiscal reality in this state is that wardens in DFG aren't able to perform their primary mission under the current structure. Maybe not the best solution but at least reorganization gives them the chance to do so....

I don't have much on the Florida F&G Department. Could you provide some additional info (re: Number of wardens, costs, etc.) :?:

[steelie]

Well Darian.....I don't know or care if you are a Warden. Reorganization is what is really needed in DF&G. First, stop letting the Governor appoint the Director. This should be someone from the ranks of the department that knows and understands the issues of wildlife management. This could be why the Governor has taken DF&G money for the state budget, not DF&G budget.

As for conservation, giving out tickets is not the only thing that DF&G has to do. They need to do real conservation work, even though they are undermanned. I haven't heard any of them complain about the water going out of the Delta or fixing the issue of the decline of Salmon and Steelhead.

As for Calpers and unions, I am a member of both! So how do you know that I'm not a Warden.

I couldn't care less if they go to CHP and get the same benefits, they need to do the job of conservation. They already have law officer status.

[Mike McKenzie]

I couldn't care less if they go to CHP and get the same benefits, they need to do the job of conservation. They already have law officer status.

You've got it only partially right! Complete reorganization of the way DFG works and giving the Director political "insulation" from everyone but the voters would be a good start. Also DFG enforcement officers should be in their own bargaining unit and not in with a bunch of dispatchers and other "office workers".

Additionally, wardens should only do F&G Code enforcement! If people want to pass environmental laws and have them enforced, then they should also include monies to pay for the staff needed to to that work. Period! Taking wardens away from their real job is insane, especially when there isn't enough of them to cover the state's public trust mandate! To accomplish conservation work that needs to be done, the legislature should provide the money and the resources to do it!

The basic problem with all of these issues is the fact that it will never "get fixed" until the people of California have the political will to change the "status quo". Not likely to happen in the for-see-able future.... As I've often said " the single biggest impediment to umitigated development and corporate Ag's enrichment by manipulation of water codes, would be a fully funded and staffed DFG with out any ties to politicians!!"

Mike

[steelie]

Mike,

You have hint the nail on the head. I agree with you.

[Mike O]

on another note...

wonder if those warden stamps on my license would work like those " I support the Police Athletics League" or other law enforcement bumper stickers work on the cars? A little extra juice when that barb isn't crimped tight enough not to snag a Q-tip?

Just sayin...

[Darian]

OK,.... Let's explore this idea a bit more. Mike and others raise some very important points. DFG is politicized and chronically underfunded regardless of current economic conditions. It's also true that DFG does not take good care of it's funding or properties as shown in repeated audits dating back into the early 1980's. :(

Wardens at DFG have responsibility for enforcement over a state that is the most diverse (in every way), populous and one of the largest in acreage in the US. They're low in numbers and budget resources. As evidence that they are strained, wardens have stated publicly that they don't have enough numbers to enforce new laws such as MLPA. Mike identified actions required to fix problems at DFG. However, he places a caveate at the end, stating that they're: "....Not likely to happen in the for-see-able future...." :neutral:

That being the case, is it insane to move law enforcement out of DFG :question: One of the signs of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Isn't keeping the status quo (wardens) at DFG something similar :question:

Moving the Law Enforcement Division, it's budget and all of it's responsibilities, intact, to CHP is doable. It's a match when the similar duties/skill sets/resources are matched up. under this scenario, authorized code sections of the F&G code would still be enforced as the wardens primary duties would remain the same. The potential for expanded enforcement activity would be high as CHP doesn't seem to have any problems with obtaining adequate funding. 8)

This move would place wardens in a Law Enforcement bargaining unit and de-politicize their activities to a greater extent than is now possible. 8)

Of course, all of this is just speculation for discussion purposes and not a formal proposal. So,.... for whatever it's worth, I don't believe anything will change at DFG anytime soon either. :neutral: If you really want things to change at DFG start participating in government, become an activist like Mike McKenzie. :nod: :nod:

[Mike McKenzie]

about combining duties of DFG with other law enforcement entities...there is a tremendous difference between DFG enforcement officers and and all the other "sworn officers" (CHP, Sheriffs Dept. and city police) In California at least, DFG enforcement officers have greater latitude when it comes to "search and seizure" than other law enforcement officers. This is why if the Hiway Patrol, County Sheriff or city cop stops you for certain F & G Code violations, they have to call/wait for a DFG warden to show up to search for "evidence". Wardens can do searches with out a warrant in a lot of cases whereas regular law enforcement officers can't. This is an important distinction, sometimes it's make or break deal.

However, none of this means that DFG enforcement officers can't be combined with CHP or others with regard to Bargaining Units and thus equitable pay! (Which they more than deserve!)

Mike

[steelie]

Mike,

Actually D&F has to follow the same procedures as any one else. They have to have probable cause, or that is an invasion of your civil liberties, an illegal search. They have to have seen you put in your vehicle, or a witness called in. This has happen to a good friend of mine, he pulled off the road. The D&G made an illegal search, which my friend put in a formal written compliant. That D&G person is no longer employed by D&G.

[Mike McKenzie]

when I made the previous post I forgot a couple of the "finer points" with regard to DFG search powers. The Fish and Game Code gives them the latitude I was referring to but it's not as broad as what I "remembered". What they can search without probable cause is defined by the following Sections of the F&G Code:

1006. The department may inspect the following:
(a) All boats, markets, stores and other buildings, except
dwellings, and all receptacles, except the clothing actually worn by
a person at the time of inspection, where birds, mammals, fish,
reptiles, or amphibia may be stored, placed, or held for sale or
storage.
(b) All boxes and packages containing birds, mammals, fish,
reptiles, or amphibia which are held for transportation by any common
carrier.

2012. All licenses, tags, and the birds, mammals, fish, reptiles,
or amphibians taken or otherwise dealt with under this code, and any
device or apparatus designed to be, and capable of being, used to
take birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibians shall be exhibited
upon demand to any person authorized by the department to enforce
this code or any law relating to the protection and conservation of
birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibians.

What we would read into the above and what the "law" says might be a little different....

Mike