PDA

View Full Version : Governor Proposes Slash of DFG Budget



Dan Bacher
01-13-2008, 03:19 PM
Schwarzenegger the "Fish Terminator" Proposes Slashing DFG Budget, Closing Parks

by Dan Bacher

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has always styled himself as the "action hero," but he is looking more like a bad actor in a bloody slasher/horror movie, based on his proposed budget cuts to the Department of Fish and Game, California's State Parks and the State EPA.

Schwarzenegger, after calling for support for his $9 billion water bond to bail out corporate agribusiness in his "state of the state" address on January 9, announced a proposed budget cut of $2.6 million in the Department of Fish and Game's budget on Thursday, January 10. This fall of the budget ax would reduce 38 Fish and Game warden positions.

What is the Governor thinking? If he is going to slash the already besieged DFG's budget like this, drastically reducing the number of wardens in the field to save some money, why is he calling on the taxpayers to indebt their children's children's children with a fiscally irrresponsible water bond that includes two new dams and the peripheral canal?

If he wants to slash the Department's budget so much, wouldn't it make sense for him to issue an executive order to suspend the MLPA process until there is money to enforce the existing and future no-fishing zones? How will MPAs be enforced when an already demoralized and underfunded department is eviscerated by his budget cuts?

Most of the media still believes that Schwarzenegger, the worst ever governor for fish, fishing rights and the environment in California history, is a "green" governor because of his rhetorical grandstanding about climate change. *But those of us who actually have studied his actions in office see his administration as an unparalleled disaster for fish and the outdoors.

Not only does he want to destroy the Bay-Delta estuary and northern California fisheries by exporting more water to subsidized agribusiness and southern California while gutting the DFG, but Schwarzenegger's budget proposal calls for the closure of 48 of California's 279 state parks to "save" $13.3 million. These include many public accesses for fishing such as Woodson Bridge State Recreation Area, Clear Lake State Park, Tomales Bay State Park, Benicia State Recreation Area, Candlestick Point State Recreation Area, McConnell State Recreation Area and Henry Coe State Park. Many state beaches are either proposed for closure or for lifeguard reductions. *

Fishing access is a huge issue now, with many reclamation districts in the Delta and landowners throughout the state illegally closing access to navigable rivers and sloughs, in complete violation of the State Constitution. If the Governor has his way, much of the existing public fishing access in California would be closed until regional governments are able to purchase state property.

In addition, Schwarzenegger has proposed "budget-balancing reductions" for the State Environmental Protection Agency that would hurt the already limited pollution controls on the state's rivers, lakes bays and ocean waters.

Total "budget-balancing" reductions for the Environmental Protection Agency amount to $1.6 million in 2007-08 and $8.3 million and 16.5 personnel years in 2008-09. The major reductions include $4.3 million and 12.0 personnel years in 2008-09 for the State Water Resources Control Board. These reductions will result in delays to the Board's capacity to issue permits for pollutant discharge elimination systems that regulate the discharge of wastewater to surface waters in the state.

The reduction will also decrease contract funding for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) action plans to restore clean water. The federal Clean Water Act requires that states identify water bodies -- bays, rivers, streams, creeks, and coastal areas -- that do not meet water quality standards, and identify the pollutants that impair them, and develop solutions. The contracts support scientific research, assessment, and monitoring as part of TMDL development.
*
Is anybody out there mad enough about what the Governor has done to our fisheries and our fishing rights - and what further damage he proposes to do to them - to consider launching a recall campaign against Schwarzenegger? Is there any way to get this guy to listen? Is there any way to get him to reverse course?

I certainly hope that the Legislature and the public are able to block the Governor's plan to slash the DFG and Cal EPA's budget and close state parks.

Just when you think that the "Fish Terminator" has sunk to the lowest level he possibly could, Schwarzenegger has the uncanny ability to sink even lower! If you've had enough, call, write or email the Governor to tell him what you think of his proposed budget cuts!

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160
Email: go to http://gov.ca.gov/interact *

Toxic_Waste
01-13-2008, 05:59 PM
quote:
If he wants to slash the Department's budget so much, wouldn't it make sense for him to issue an executive order to suspend the MLPA process until there is money to enforce the existing and future no-fishing zones? How will MPAs be enforced when an already demoralized and underfunded department is eviscerated by his budget cuts?
------------------------------------------------------------

I was thinking this very same thing. Not too long ago, I had read that DFG was going to have to hire at least 60 new game wardens to patrol the MLPAs and if I remember right, that did not mean from one end of the coast to the other, but just one section of it.

And the park closures! The money that should be going toward enhancing our "public land" experiences is going to be used to keep us out. And, of course, our tax money will be used for that.

delta916
01-15-2008, 07:57 AM
I am a bit surprised there is not much comment on this. We should all be concerned with what Arnold wants to do with DFG. With the way our fish and wildlife have been declining the last many, many years less protection for our resources could spell big trouble for what remains. The fact is DFG takes very little of the money it has from the general fund. Many programs are funded from dedicated funds put forth specifally for their project from other sources. So when they take a big hit like this the easiest thing to hit is the Wardens who do use some GF monies. Unfortunatley when the resources are gone they are gone forever. Arnold is not the green governor he wants evryone to believe he is. And we should all be writing him and telling him that he needs to fund more protection for our fish and wildlife instead of less. There are other programs in this state that will get more money next FY and funding more Wardens is not a huge chunk of money considering they are underpaid.

Stripermike
01-16-2008, 08:02 PM
There may not be many left but they're sure gettin' good!
Check this story out:
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/story?columnist=swan_james&id=3169773

Here's the California Fish and Game Warden's Association web site
http://www.californiafishandgamewardens.com/index-3.html

Here's the story of how they're bein' screwed by the Governator....From the Thin green Line..
http://www.californiafishandgamewardens.com/pop20.htm

ocean314
01-17-2008, 09:12 PM
When Arnold first became governor he tired to clean up the countryís most corrupt legislative. He tired to get back the huge monies that Davis gave to the various employee unions as he tried to buy his reelection. Remember the ballot measures. And what did the people of California do but vote to keep the most corrupt legislators in business and let the employee unions keep their money that Davis gave them in raises and pensions.
Arnold is not stupid, but a very smart man if the people of California donít give a damn about their state then he is going to do what it takes to stay in office, play the media game that most of the people of California want to hear. Can you blame him?
Most of the monies that come into the California state government are earmarked funding for whatever. There is only about 10 to at the most 20% discretionary monies to be spent. And there are all kinds of people with their hands out.
Perhaps instead of blaming Arnold you should instead demand that your state legislator stop wasting all of that discretionary monies so that would be enough for all the game wardens we need. But hey we all had a chance to straighten out this state of ours and no one seems to care.
Now the result, lets all ***** at Arnold instead of looking in the mirror. Who did you vote for your state legislator? The same crook that gerry mannered the election districts so he or his cronies would be in power for ever?

ocean314
01-17-2008, 09:15 PM
Man great software pregnant dog was not the word i typed. lol

chiselchest
01-18-2008, 08:43 AM
California has the LOWEST ratio of Wardons to ANYTHING you compare it against. Real estate size - sportsman numbers, etc.

If we allow Schwarzenegger to get away with this sheet, we freakin' deserve it.

We must unite, organize and act.

It's our fisheries that are at stake - and he does not care. *We need to make HIM accountable for protecting our great resourses...they belong to us. Not big business..

bobcatjohn
01-18-2008, 08:53 AM
I don't agree with what the govenor is doing but our system of goverment is not a one man operation what I see is that legestive body has not been done its job but it is easier for everyone to blame the govenor. So combined with complaning we are doing we modt remeber that we have a election coming up and to get out and make your voice heard by voting and then tell your repersentative what you want them to do and *then keep a score card and if they are not doing what you want done vote them out, as long as the people don't let the officials know what they want and then hold them to the task the goverment will not change. If we don't even vote we pass the control of our goverment to the special intrest. In summary if we don't care enough to vote then we deserve to lose our form of goverment it is in our hands. I will now step of my soap box. Get out and vote.

Bobcat John

ocean314
01-18-2008, 04:33 PM
bobcat that was very well said. I was on the river today fishing for steelhead and a guy was complaining about not enough game wardens and everything else. When i asked him if he votes he say no he gave up. Typical complain and complain and dont get off your butt to do anything.

rhettp
01-19-2008, 08:03 AM
Everyone that fishes, hunts, or enjoy's the outdoors should be outraged by this. If these buget cuts are made it will be devistating to all of us. If you have not contacted the govenor and your senator do not complane later. Once these cuts are made they may never comback. Make your voice heard.

Double Haul
01-20-2008, 10:22 AM
Thanks Dan for reminding me. I just sent my e-mail to the "terminator" to let him know my feelings.

Mike, thanks for the links to the fish and game site, pretty depressing but interesting.

It has always baffled me why fish and game doesn't have a volunteer reserve program. Most cities in our state have trained reserve officers that volunteer during events that require additional manning. Why doesn't DFG? If I were about 20 years younger I would do it. Just give me full confiscation rights and an account on e-bay!

wildturkey
01-20-2008, 05:55 PM
I can honestly say I agree with what you gent's are saying, but I see the DFG as the botom of the food chain compared to the rest of the state :-? Heck even the Border Patrol doesn't get the backing it deserves and look at the situation we are facing now??? :-[ The talk shows buzz with people calling compaliaining, but the powers to be don't care as long as the money is there and the problems are all muddy in which way to go in solving them. Finger pinting is the game.
I still write and complain and vote but don't see the light at the end of the tunnel because they keep buying more tunnel :( :(
Just one mans opinion.

Wildturkey

FISHSTALKER
01-21-2008, 07:38 AM
I have copied and pasted a portion of the Governors Santa Barbara
Speech on this page. The cuts are not directed at DFG alone. I'm not attempting to downplay the seriousness of the park closures or the DFG cuts but I am trying to present a non-sensationalized view of the seriousness of the unbalanced financial struggle of this State.
Please read this or go to the posted URL for the total copy. There is some good Q&A there.

http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/speech/8575/

And so this year we have the same situation again. This year our anticipated revenues are supposed to be 101 billion dollars, meaning this fiscal year, 2007-2008. And our revenues now are only going to be 96 billion dollars, so we're 5 -- about 4.6 billion dollars short of those revenues. The only problem is that while our revenues are now flat -- we have only an increase of 1 percent revenues rather than the 5 percent we anticipated -- the spending formulas that we have in our state require us to spend and to increase spending by 7.3 percent. So you have flat revenues, but the spending formulas, that I cannot control, and only when we pass laws can they be controlled, increase by 7.3 percent.
So that means that we have been watching now for several months that we are spending, that the State spends 400 to 600 million dollars more than we're taking in, and we can do nothing about it. So now we have to do mid-year cuts, which means the legislators have to get together, and with a two-third vote we then can make certain cuts. So we have made recommendations of those cuts. But the problem is if we don't make those cuts now, by next year it gets even worse. This fiscal year we have a 3.3 billion dollar hole, which is doable. But if we don't do anything it will go up to 14.5 billion dollars by the end of next fiscal year. That means that by the year 2009 in June, the end of June, we will be at 14.5 billion dollars.
So this is why I have recommended in my budget to make 10 percent cuts all across the board in order to really be fiscally responsible and only spend the money that we have, because right now we are spending more than we have, and that's irresponsible. No one can live under those circumstances, everyone will get bankrupt. Companies cannot operate this way, families cannot operate this way.

Now, I've brought some charts here with me so you can see a little bit about what the problem is. We have here -- the green line is the revenue line, and the yellow line here is the spending line. So as you can see, those two are not matched up. They're totally independent. So no matter what the revenues are, the State is required to spend a certain amount of money. This is what got us into trouble in the late '90s, early 2000s. Then we had a budget deficit for billions of dollars every year. And this is why when I took over we had a 16.5 billion dollar structural deficit.

Then we tried to bring the lines together here -- and also it was easy, because the economy was growing very fast. And now the revenues are leveling off. So instead of now keeping this line with the revenues, we are required to spend more, and it goes out of control, the spending. So this is why I said let us bring this line down, and I recommended 10 percent cuts across the board, because that's the fiscally responsible thing to do.

But it is unnecessary, because we never should be ever cutting anything if we have a budget system in place that really works. Like for instance, if we would have had, the last 10 years, the budget system in place that I'm recommending, it would have been like this; the two lines are together, as you can see here. The spending line and the revenue lines are together. Not perfectly together, but at least we wouldn't have to go and suspend education and go and suspend certain programs and make 10 percent cuts. What we're doing right now with our budget system is we are basically sending people on a roller coaster ride. Every year when we do the budget it's a roller coaster ride where the people of California have to hold on for dear life. And I say this is no way to do it.

Now, we have, of course, known this ahead of time. This is why when I came into office in 2003 I made recommendations, and we introduced a bill to make those changes, to make changes in the budget system. But it was voted down, because they didn't like to be fiscally disciplined in Sacramento. It was voted down. And then we went back again in 2005 and we asked the people through the special election to go and again vote for a budget system. That was not successful.

So now we are back a third time. I think that this year it may work, because the people of California see they don't want to be taken on this roller coaster ride. And the legislators themselves see that this has been a huge problem for our state. And not only because we have to make those cuts, but also the financial community is looking at California like we're operating like a joke, because they're looking at us and saying we're not fiscally responsible. So that has an effect on our credit rating, and this is why California has consistently had one of the worst credit ratings in the nation. And we want to improve that, because every time that you have an improvement of credit rating you save hundreds of millions of dollars on interest that you're paying. So this is why this is very important.

Here we have a chart that shows to you -- I want to turn this a little bit so you can also see it over here -- here we have a chart that shows to you that if we do not have a budget reform, this is how it will continue going out of control, and here are the revenues. Each of these lines, each of these numbers represents here a year, which means approximately 10 billion dollars deficit.

So the reason why I want to show you that is because there are some people that make suggestion that we should go and increase taxes. But now imagine that every time we have a bump like this, like we have seen earlier here, every time we have a bump like this, or like this, which is, like I said, every four or five years, we would increase taxes to solve the problem. I don't think anyone in California would be happy that every time we cannot manage our finances, and manage our budget, we increase taxes. You cannot tax your way out of this problem. You cannot tax your way out of the problem, because as you can see, it's 10 billion dollars every year.

What I want to do is, instead of raising taxes, I want to raise people's hopes. I want to raise people's aspirations, their dreams, and get them going, and give money back to the people of California, like we have done when I have come into office. We have reformed workers' compensation. That has reduced the workers' comp costs by 63 percent. That gives back to the private sector 14 billion dollars.

Then we rescinded the car tax. Remember the previous administration increased the car tax because they ran out of money? This is the first thing they do when they run out of money. Sacramento immediately grabs your money, as if it's your fault that we cannot get our act together in Sacramento. It's not your fault. You expect Sacramento to go and manage the money the right way. So what we did was rescinded the car tax, and that saves California taxpayers 4 to 6 billion dollars since 2003, since I came into office to now. Now, think about that. Now it's 6 billion dollars; then it was 4 billion. That's 20 billion dollars.

So you add the 14 billion that California saved in workers' comp and the 20 billion dollars that we have saved with the car tax. That's 34 billion dollars we gave back the State of California, rather than collecting money from you, since you're already in a category of high-paying tax. California is one on the top when it comes to paying taxes, so therefore we shouldn't go back to you to ask you for more tax money. So this what we want to do, is give the money back to the people rather than collecting money.

Now, we have done certain things through Proposition 58 and other propositions where we have tightened the noose, because in the old days what happened was, before I came into office, whenever they ran out of money they started grabbing and stealing money from everywhere else. Sacramento went after local government. They grabbed money from local government, 1.3 to 1.5 billion dollars each time. Then they grabbed money from transportation, another 1.4 billion dollars. Then they go and grab money from pensions, and then they borrowed money for ongoing programs, and on and on and on.

But with Proposition 58, which the people voted for in the spring of 2004, we eliminated that. Through Proposition 58 we cannot borrow for ongoing programs anymore. And through Proposition 1A, which people voted on just two years ago, we protected local government, so now local government cannot be again ripped off. And then through Proposition 42 transportation now cannot be ripped off anymore, because that protects transportation. So what we wanted to do is take away all the possibilities where the State can go and grab money when they run out of money up there.

So now the noose is tightened, and now they have no other option but to go and fix the system, because we can't borrow, we cannot steal anymore money, we can do none of those things anymore. So now we have to go and live within our means. And I wanted to get the state to that point, so that we are forced to fix the budget system once and for all. So as you can see again here, we have no problem with the revenues, because as you can see, our revenues consistently keep going up. It's not like they're going down. They're consistently going up, except it goes like this.

So what we have to do is get a straight line, get discipline going. And the way we're going to do that is by having a rainy day fund put aside. There are two things that I recommend here, how we fix the budget problem. So when we have a steep incline, like we had in 1999 where we had an increase of our revenues by 23 percent, let's not spend this whole 23 percent increase, because it's not going to be forever. Let us take some of that money off and put it in a rainy day fund so when we have a decline of revenues, a flattening out of revenues, we now can supplement the revenues with the rainy day fund. All of sudden now we don't have to suspend Proposition 98, we don't have to take money away from the schools or from the elderly folks, or from anyone else. We just keep going up with our spending and with our revenues.

And the second thing that I've recommended is that the legislators, rather than debating over what should we cut if we run out of money, they should predetermine that. They should sit down when things are going well, sit down, let's decide. If we have a downturn in our economy or with revenues, then we should go and decide ahead of time. Here are the four or five programs that we cut first. Then here is the next layer of programs that we cut, which is the Arkansas model, and other states are using that same model.

In California what we do is, whenever we have a problem, that's when we start sitting down, and that's when we start fighting over the budget. And sometimes that fight goes on for three months. Now, when they do this kind of debate, or in the budget for three months, there's nothing else that gets done. Now imagine, for three months, nothing else gets done.

Now, I've seen that last summer when they debated over and they held up the budget for two months beyond of what they should have done. And what happened was, this whole three months, the whole summer, nothing got done, because it was all about the budget. And the reason why nothing else gets done is because as soon as you introduce something else during that time, then it becomes trading, like horse trading. Okay, you can help me with the budget here, and I'll help you with this. We don't want to do that.


So this is why it's unnecessary. Three months that are wasted that we could be talking about education reform, or health care reform, or about the environment, or about infrastructure and rebuilding California. All of those important things we could do. But instead, we're wasting three months on the budget. So that is why I said let us sit down now, and let us talk about this. What do we cut in case this happens again?

So there are three things that we have to do now, the challenges that the legislators have under this fiscal emergency.

They have go and make midyear cuts, which means this year before June 30th. And this is why they have now 45 days. As a matter of fact, they have 38 days left, really. Then they have to make those kinds of cuts that I have recommended. Or they'll maybe change some of those things, but definitely to make the cuts this year.

The second challenge they have is to go and start making the cuts in the next fiscal year, which starts on July 1 until next year. So they have to again go into that within these next few months and do that, be disciplined about it.
And the third thing they have to do is fix the bud

ocean314
01-21-2008, 11:37 AM
Thanks fishstalker. Nice to see some balance and the whole and complete facts.

sehoner
01-21-2008, 11:54 AM
Inspite of everything that has been said about the Governator, the image that he portrays and the statements that he makes leads one to think he actually BELIEVES in what he is doing.
That is to say he actually believes what he is doing is the correct action for Californians.

I thought it was both interesting and a nice change that the speech/address was delivered in laymans terms rather than the usual political malarky filled puff balls they usually are.

We shall only see.

Keep sending those emails and making those phone calls.

FISHSTALKER
01-21-2008, 12:23 PM
I think he's still doing the job for free too! ;)

sehoner
01-21-2008, 12:49 PM
HA!

Now thats hilarious!

[smiley=rotfl2.gif]

FISHSTALKER
01-21-2008, 02:08 PM
HA!

Now thats hilarious!

[smiley=rotfl2.gif]

What's so funny? ........... The man originally took the job with the understanding he would not take pay. ( He is a wealthy man to begin with.) You find it unbeleivable? .......

sehoner
01-21-2008, 03:26 PM
No not unbelievable, just laughable.

I know he "gives" his salary back to the state and that is great. He is a very wealthy public servant who shouldnt take the publics money if he doesnt need it-and he doesnt.

I also think its funny (ironic) that his staff is paid very well. *With most of them making half or almost half of what he would make.

Public servants are there to serve the publics best interest, but what we have is an ever increasing "public servant" sector that makes a whole lot more than they should.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070527/ai_n19181346/pg_1

Class Code Elected Officials Monthly Salary Annual Salary
5309 Governor $17,681.56/ $212,179
5316 Lieutenant Governor $13,261.17/ $159,134
5695 Attorney General $15,358.43/ $184,301
5319 Secretary of State $13,261.17/ $159,134
4189 Controller $14,145.25/ $169,743
4232 Treasurer $14,145.25/ $169,743
2545 Superintendent of Public Instruction $15,358.43/ $184,301
4393 Insurance Commissioner $14,145.25/ $169,743
4273 Members, Board of Equalization $13,261.17/ $159,134
0000 Speaker of the Assembly $11,136.56/ $133,639
0000 President Pro Tem of the Senate $11,136.56/ $133,639
0000 Minority Floor Leader $11,136.56/ $133,639
0000 Majority Floor Leader $10,410.29/ $124,923
0000 Second Ranking Minority Leader $10,410.29/ $124,923
0000 All Other Legislators $9,684.01/ $116,208

FISHSTALKER
01-21-2008, 07:13 PM
No not unbelievable, just laughable.

I know he "gives" his salary back to the state and that is great. He is a very wealthy public servant who shouldnt take the publics money if he doesnt need it-and he doesnt.

I also think its funny (ironic) that his staff is paid very well. With most of them making half or almost half of what he would make.

Public servants are there to serve the publics best interest, but what we have is an ever increasing "public servant" sector that makes a whole lot more than they should.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070527/ai_n19181346/pg_1

Class Code Elected Officials Monthly Salary Annual Salary
5309 Governor $17,681.56/ $212,179
5316 Lieutenant Governor $13,261.17/ $159,134
5695 Attorney General $15,358.43/ $184,301
5319 Secretary of State $13,261.17/ $159,134
4189 Controller $14,145.25/ $169,743
4232 Treasurer $14,145.25/ $169,743
2545 Superintendent of Public Instruction $15,358.43/ $184,301
4393 Insurance Commissioner $14,145.25/ $169,743
4273 Members, Board of Equalization $13,261.17/ $159,134
0000 Speaker of the Assembly $11,136.56/ $133,639
0000 President Pro Tem of the Senate $11,136.56/ $133,639
0000 Minority Floor Leader $11,136.56/ $133,639
0000 Majority Floor Leader $10,410.29/ $124,923
0000 Second Ranking Minority Leader $10,410.29/ $124,923
0000 All Other Legislators $9,684.01/ $116,208

This subject has left the original and now gets lost in the smoke of nit picking about State Employee Salaries. I'm guessing that you would expect them to carry on in their possitions but take a pay cut to satisfy your disatisfaction over the Governors propossed cuts?
You certainly are entitled to your opinion but I would have to fervently disagree with you about these State salaries. Like any State employee, their compensation does not compare to employment in the private sector. Also everyone of these positions is subject to pressures from the public scrutiny as well as pressures from the top office.
Most of these positions you have listed could easily earn close to double the amount working for Fortune Companies or others. So why do they do it? For a number of reasons I would guess. Just to be mentioned in the history books might be enough for some. Others might actually think they could make a pronounced difference in the quality of life in this State.

sehoner
01-21-2008, 07:56 PM
Dale,
before we go somewhere that is not intended let me just state the following for clarification.

I believe most if not all state employees are overpaid.
I believe all public servants are overpaid.
I believe the first cut that should ever be made is to the public servants pay. After all, if they had done their job in the first place, we wouldn't have to cut anything. Is that not a correct statement?

Close our parks and make 10% cuts across the board? Why should we when this has happened in the last three years?

"# On June 18, 2007, the Commission met and voted to provide the salaries shown above, effective the first Monday in December 2007. These amounts represent a 5 percent salary increase for the Attorney General and Superintendent of Public Instruction and a 2.75 percent increase for the other offices listed.
# On June 23, 2006, the Commission met and voted to increase the salaries for Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Insurance Commissioner, and Board of Equalization members by 18 percent. The Commission voted to increase salaries for all members of the Legislature by 2 percent, effective the first Monday in December 2006. The salaries shown above reflect the new pay levels.
# On May 23, 2005, the Commission met and voted to increase legislators' salaries 12 percent, effective the first Monday in December 2005. The salaries shown above reflect the new pay levels."

Since you opened the forum to "the private sector";
In the private sector salary increases are based on merit and achievement, not on tenure. Why is it the exact opposite in our government?

My point is this and then I am done;
Why should we the taxpayers of California suffer more losses to recreational areas, education and civil service positions because our state representatives screwed the pooch on this one?

I just don't see it.

Rich.



(P.S. the salaries shown do not include such perks as, travel, meals, cars, clothes, liquor and entertainment to name just a few items paid for by taxpayers.)

FISHSTALKER
01-22-2008, 06:45 AM
I believe the first cut that should ever be made is to the public servants pay. After all, if they had done their job in the first place, we wouldn't have to cut anything. Is that not a correct statement?
NO!
The State budget cuts are not the cause of your list of employees not doing their jobs. It is due to an imbalance of the budget which is explained very clearly in the Governors Santa Barbara statements in my previous post. It is due to our legislators not comming to a timely budget agreement which stalls and inables other inportant legislation and addressing the policies that lock cyclical fixed expenditures that expand the distance between a balanced budget. The Governor has again taken the steps in an attempt to fix this problem.
Close our parks and make 10% cuts across the board? Why should we when this has happened in the last three years?
Again I would refer you to the Governors address for your answer. I beleive if you had read it you would not have posted these questions. The State is in the position of spending more revenue than it has. The normal method of fixing the cash flow problem is to raise taxes. The Governor wants to end that practice. He makes the comparison of the State to running like a big business. If the State were a big business, it would be Bankrupt.
Since you opened the forum to "the private sector";
In the private sector salary increases are based on merit and achievement, not on tenure. Why is it the exact opposite in our government?
It is and then it isn't. There are several thousands of employee positions in this State and not all of them are structured the same. Some positions are structured with merit promotions do to time, learning and ability. Other jobs are stagnent do the same thing day in and day out until retirement.
As far as rate of pay increases goes ............ The increases usually are in concert with cost of living. The last three years has seen enormous increases in personal costs. I shouldn't have to explain that fuel, heating, power and food costs have all increased dramatically across the board.

I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.
Ronald Reagan

The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.
Ronald Reagan

Mickey_Thomas
01-22-2008, 07:51 AM
The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.
Ronald Reagan And the spending goes on and on. When someone starts out wanting to do something about it and runs for office, by the time they get in position to be elected to a office where they could actually do something about it, they've been paid for by the lobbiest just like the rest of the ones that are in office and still spending. Wholesale changes in how we elect our officials would be a start, don't figure on seeing that in my lifetime :-/. This election year is no different, a lot of "none of the above" choices >:(

sehoner
01-22-2008, 09:12 AM
The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.
Ronald Reagan And the spending goes on and on. When someone starts out wanting to do something about it and runs for office, by the time they get in position to be elected to a office where they could actually do something about it, they've been paid for by the lobbiest just like the rest of the ones that are in office and still spending. Wholesale changes in how we elect our officials would be a start, don't figure on seeing that in my lifetime :-/. This election year is no different, a lot of "none of the above" choices >:(

Thats all I am saying.
They never learn or dont care to learn and in the end we the taxpayers get the shaft.

Maybe if the first cuts to be made are to the pay of our congress, senators, mayors and other public servants this problem would clear itself up real quick.

Thanks for the discussion Dale. ;)

ocean314
01-22-2008, 03:11 PM
Every year state and federal revenues increase every year state representatives and congress at the federal level spend more then comes in. And people keep voting the same one in year after year and then blame the governor and the president for all our problems.

Cal.Kellogg
01-23-2008, 10:26 AM
Personally the fact that state authorities have the ability to give themselves pay increases makes me want to puke!....Just last night on the national news I learn that private sector pay dropped 2% over the past year while the cost of living in most catagories went up from 4.98% to 6.2%......Jobs in the government are refered to as working in the "Public Service" in other words the governor and his underlings are there to serve the public....you know the folks that pay bills in the state....As a result when times are tough on the middle and lower middle class workers like they are now, PUBLIC SERVANTS should be receiving PAY CUTS rather than raises...Getting back to the decline in the DFG budget I have mixed feelings....On one hand it seems clear to me that the Governor is at war with our fisheries and fishermen and seems determined to destroy the delta. By reducing funding for the DFG, the folks sworn to protect our fisheries, the govenor is further illustrating his total lack of regard for the health of our our fisheries....Yet on the other hand, when I think back to the Prospect Island disaster and the actions of the DFG when they stood impotently by and did absolutely nothing I wonder if cutting the DFG budget will actually have a negative effect. What is the difference between one warden on the state dole standing on the levy at Prospect and doing nothing versus 3 wardens on the state dole standing on the levy and doing nothing.....The results are about the same except that if there is only one impotent warden on site the tax payers are getting a substantial savings......

Cal.Kellogg
01-23-2008, 10:40 AM
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
Ronald Reagan

That's a cute sound bite, but budget deficits are real and deficits hurt real people....the stuffed shirts that are responsible for deficits almost never suffer from thier actions. Almost all of them are rich when they enter office and have no problem voting themselves pay increases on a regular basis to cope with inflation. It is the working class that suffers from the inflation created by budget deficits. They are the ones that can't vote themselves a pay increase or often have to take a pay decrease because the company they work for is suffering. Yet as they make the same or less the cost of the products they must have like food and fuel spiral ever upwards.
I'm sure that Ron wasn't worried about the deficit back in the 80's and why would he? He wasn't one of the working class Joes' that had clench thier teeth and fight for the money to keep thier families fed and in a house. Oh yeah I remember that was my dad and we didn't live in the White House although our house was white...with brown trim... I helped Dad with the painting....Ha

sehoner
01-23-2008, 11:26 AM
Personally the fact that state authorities have the ability to give themselves pay increases makes me want to puke!.....Jobs in the government are refered to as working in the "Public Service" in other words the governor and his underlings are there to serve the public....you know the folks that pay bills in the state....As a result when times are tough on the middle and lower middle class workers like they are now, PUBLIC SERVANTS should be receiving PAY CUTS rather than raises.


What we need is a smiley that is pointing to his nose.
That way when we want to say, "Hey Fish_Writer, you hit it right on the nose!" we can just add that smiley.

FISHSTALKER
01-25-2008, 10:11 AM
Gentlemen - I believe you are lost in your own tax paying self-importance and the fishing communities contribution does not compare to the size of a Nat with that of the rest of the State. This may sound harsh but I believe a reality check is in order.
Spiting in the eye of the Officials and Offices that we request support and aid from to restore and save our fishery is insane. This board is adversarial with every Federal office, State office, Water office and water using business like Agriculture and including 23 million public water users. Then you cry out when you get no recognition or response from those who are in power to support your needs. How incredible!
Take a look at the size of contributors to the State and the problem areas like Real Estate. The 2 billion in fishing merchandise is most probably included in Wholesale & Retail.
It is unfortunate that the States fishing/Sport industry is so small but that is reality.

http://www.firstresearch.com/IndustryAnalysis/California.asp

Cal.Kellogg
01-25-2008, 03:53 PM
"Spiting in the eye of the Officials and Offices that we request support and aid from to restore and save our fishery is insane."

This is where you fall astray. I'm not requesting thier support, I'm demanding it....I'm demanding that we as anglers and tax payers receive that which we are paying for. Employees of the DFG are "Public Servants" in other words their job is to serve me and every other resident of this great state. More specifically the job of the DFG is protecting fish and fisheries. Every year we anglers pay more, more, more and receive less, less, less....less fish, less enforcement and less fishing opportunities....One of the biggest fish kills in state history occured at Prospect Island....DFG officials were present, DFG launched an investigation.....Why didn't the officers on site do thier duty and protect those fish? Now two plus months into the future why haven't arrests been made or fines issued? * I'm certain that DFG personal have been receiving pay checks since the Prospect disaster and yet they still have not done what us tax payers are paying them to do....


"you cry out when you get no recognition or response from those who are in power to support your needs"

Isn't this a country of the people, by the people and for the people...I don't believe it is a country of the government, by the government and for the government despite the fact that most government folks would have you believe that the second statement is the reality. Part *of the problem is that there are some people out there that seem to believe "those who are in power" are doing us tax payers a favor when they support our need....They are not doing us a favor, they are doing thier job....When the DFG enhances or protects a fishery they are not doing me a favor, they are earning thier keep by doing exactly what I and many other anglers are paying them to do....

FISHSTALKER
01-25-2008, 04:41 PM
Ah youth and Walter Mitty idealism. You keep on demanding.
If you are married and use that same kind of attitude ..... you won't be.

metalmouth
01-25-2008, 04:53 PM
Edited:

Dan Bacher
01-25-2008, 10:43 PM
"When the minority starts demanding they often get put in their place."

Actually, it is a historical fact that small groups of people are ALWAYS the ones who make changes. It is the vocal minority who puts the corrupt leaders of the majority in their place.

Only when they demand - and not request - does ANYTHING get accomplished. There are a lot more recreational anglers than there are subsidized water barons - but the water contractors are a tiny, vocal, well organized minority that the state and federal governments bow down before.

Fishermen need to stop "playing nice" and do like the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance does:
*1. Litigate!
*2. Litigate!
*3. Litigate!

As Jim Martin, former Chief of Fisheries, Oregon, told me last week, "Fishermen don't get the fisheries they deserve - they only get the fisheries they fight for."

In California, we're currently in an intense water war. Anglers need to choose which side are they on - will they support those subsidized agri-dinosaurs of yesterday or will they support their own sport by fighting for the restoration of our fisheries? If you're not working hard now to save our fisheries and our fishing rights, you won't have much to fish for in the future.

This is not a game - fisheries, people's lives and livelihoods are at stake! This is not a joke - because of the absymal fisheries management by the state and federal governments, many fishing businesses now on the edge may go out of business or be severely downsized. We may not have a salmon season this coming year - and we may not have much of a rockfish season either.

Recreational anglers need to get outraged, engage in as much litigation, letter writing and protest activity as possible, and stop offering up excuses for the Schwarzenegger and Bush administrations, the worst ever administrations in history for our fisheries and our fishing rights. Otherwise, we might as well all form a new group like
"Sportsmen Against Our Fishing Rights," "Fishermen Against the Environment," "Anglers for Westlands," or "Anglers Against Our Fisheries," as we preside over the loss of the Bay-Delta Estuary and other fisheries around the state!

metalmouth
01-26-2008, 06:10 AM
Edited:

Cal.Kellogg
01-26-2008, 09:18 AM
Okay Fishstalker...Let's extend your logic...I'm assuming that you own a home and pay taxes just like I do. Some of the tax money you pay goes to fund the local fire department....Just to be clear the fire department is a lot like the DFG...The DFG is sworn to protect fish and fisheries....that is thier job and that is what the tax payers are paying them to do....The fire department are also public servants...their job is to put out fires, deal with other types of emergencies and protect the public in general....The tax payers pay them to do thier job......So there is Fishstalker his wife has nothing for him to do, so he heats up a cup of hot chocolate and sets down to post on the Fish Sniffer forums....Suddenly the computer explodes and sparks ignite the carpet, that ignites the drapes and now you've got a pretty good fire burning inside your house. What to do? Since you pay taxes to fund a fire department you call them up....."HELP ME! My house is on fire and I spilled my Hot Chocolate!!!" Reply from dispatch: "I'm sorry, folks that have homes that are on fire represent a very small minority of the total population of California. All the fire fighters (yes the guys you are paying to fight fires in your district) are busy playing video games... If you are lucky and ask nicely they MIGHT come out and do the job you are paying them to do before everything you own is destroyed, but don't count on it...."


Now if that situation actually occured I would be extremely upset on your behalf and if I could in some way help you with editorial I would do it in a second.....However if I had your view of the Governmental Public Servant/Citizen Tax Payer relationship all I could do would be to say "Well Dale you've got a pretty childish and idealistic view. Afterall the fire department, despite the fact that you pay them to fight fires actually have not obligation to come out to your home when there is a fire....I mean think about it Dale, folks that have homes that are being engulfed in flames represent a microscopic minority....


By your way of thinking no fire fighter or policeman would ever have to perform thier duty...."I'm sorry ma'am folks being threatened at knife point are a very small minority here in California. Our department is understaffed and the officers we do have are playing minature golf.....What's that you demand that an officer comes out and does the duty that you are paying him to do....Listen lady I don't like your attitude....you can forget seeing an officer even if you don't get killed before they are done playing golf.....

It would be interesting if your way of thinking extended to my job..."Yes sir I know you paid for a subscription to the Fish Sniffer....Why haven't you recieved your issue? Because we didn't write one that's why? I know you paid for it but we just didn't feel like writing one this week....You demand an issue or a refund. Listen buddy, we have thousands of subscribers, folks that have called and complained represent a very small minority of our total subscriber base so you won't be receieving anything......
Wow I bet we'd be in business a really long time with an attitude like that.......

I've said this before.....This is a country of the people, by the people and for the people....not of the government, by the government, for the government.......I believe in the promise of this country and I believe in the principles that the country was founded on......The government needs to be reminded of what this country is all about on a regular basis....At this point many government employees seem to believe that the universe revolves around them. We need to illustrate the point to them that this is just not the reality.....The reason they strayed to this way of thinking is our own fault, because we have failed to hold them accountable for too long.....

Cal.Kellogg
01-26-2008, 09:31 AM
Metalmouth

I'm not talking about voting for anything....I'm talking about a government agency that is paid to do a specific job, making no effort to perform that job....If you bought a stamp from the post office, put it on an envelope that contained your truck payment and dropped it into the mail drop, would you be okay if the postal department decided they were not going to delivery any of the mail they received that day....There is a contract there, you bought a stamp and they are paid to deliver the mail....I wonder if you'd still have the same attitude when your payment was late and the guy at the post office explained to you that it is at the post office's descretion whether they delivery mail and that folks mailing out truck payments respresent a very small minority........Some of the arguments being presented here make me think I took a wrong turn the last time I came back from Shasta and ended up in another country, cause these are not the types of arguments I'd expect to hear in the United States...Sounds more like some third world country where the people are at the mercy of the government.

Dan Bacher
01-26-2008, 12:11 PM
The battle to save the Bay-Delta Estuary and other fisheries is going to be a long, hard battle, but to date we are winning, although that can seem hard to believe with the dismal salmon and steelhead runs that we're seeing. However, in the past year, some important changes have happened that will have big, long term consequences for the future of our fisheries.

1. The Governor is losing the water bonds battle! He and the water contractors are on the defensive and are greatly outnumbered. I am proud to say that I played a key role, along with Bill Jennings, John Beuttler and Jim Crenshaw of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla of Restore the Delta and others in forcing this issue into the front pages of mainstream media.

All of the hundreds of hours that I've spent writing writing articles and sending out action alerts and press releases haven't been in vain. According to today's Contra Costa Times, "With the dismal fiscal situation, and a lack of agreement on whether to build dams, the California Alliance for Jobs has withdrawn funding for a water measure." Wow!

2. The California Department of Water Resources export pumping out of the Delta is under new constraints this year because of a successful lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and another successful lawsuit by Earthjustice in federal court. This could really help restore Delta smelt, striped bass, sturgeon, salmon and other anadromous fish.

3. Assembly Members Lois Wolk and Jared Huffman, a recreational angler, have pledged to support us in efforts to restore the Delta and the salmon runs. Wolk was the one that convened the Prospect Island Legislative Hearing in Rio Vista in December.

4. Jim Martin of the RFA has submitted a proposal to the PFMC for an exempted permit program to allow deep water rockfishing (below 900 feet) for chilipepper, blackgill and other abundant deep water species. There are 20 charter boats that agreed to participate in this experimental program. Martin has also submitted a request for permission to use electric reels. I know this is not everyone's cup of tea, but it would keep boats in business when the salmon and rockfish seasons are open.

The problem is whether or not the recreational fishing industry, particularly the charter boat industry, and coastal economy, can weather the rocky times ahead until there are more fish in our rivers and on our coast. Let's hope that the industry can hold on!

FISHSTALKER
01-26-2008, 01:25 PM
Fish -writer - Thanks for your incredible pasquinade but you misplaced the substance of my original post and have construed it to be something else.

You voiced your disgruntlement with Government people and agencies because your complaint has gone ignored.

The point I attempted to make earlier is that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

This is what I posted.
Gentlemen - I believe you are lost in your own tax paying self-importance and the fishing communities contribution does not compare to the size of a Nat with that of the rest of the State. This may sound harsh but I believe a reality check is in order.
Spiting in the eye of the Officials and Offices that we request support and aid from to restore and save our fishery is insane. This board is adversarial with every Federal office, State office, Water office and water using business like Agriculture and including 23 million public water users. Then you cry out when you get no recognition or response from those who are in power to support your needs. How incredible!
Everyone enlists respect no matter what occupation they may hold. Demeaning officials and then demanding prompt servitude because you are a Tax Payer and they are a public servant is juvenile and rude.

I also included gross product dollars to emphasize the amount of loss from home sales and how so many other larger categories diminish the importance of smaller budget areas like fishing. The lowest one listed is Agriculture at 26 Billion Dollars compared to all fishing categories at 2 billion dollars. Because of deficit worries, I would presume that officials more emediate attention will be paid to the larger categories and the budget issues.

Okay -
I don't write defamatory things about my Fire Dept. or local Police or make demands of them. If I do encounter them, I'm polite and treat them with respect. I even buy them breakfast. ;)
But then our Fire Fighters are all volunteer plus I carry over a million dollar insurance coverage on my home. I also have my own home fire fighting rig just in case. By the way, I built my own computer too and have a reasonable comfort level about it's safe operation although I do turn it off every night or when I go out.
I had worked many years in this county with 2 local City Police Dept.s, the County Sherrif, and State Police. Although most of these friends are retired now, like my fishing buddy, I still believe most officers would race to my aid in a flash because I have not insulted them or criticized their Office or performance. Besides in this part of the country everyone knows each other and we are armed to the teeth.
Now I know most citizens do not share the same circumstances as I do and that this writing is totally inconsequential.
I do appreciate your editing offer but in my short life I have had some experience.
Thanks

Cal.Kellogg
01-26-2008, 05:41 PM
I don't set out to write negative things about the DFG, but I have to call things as I see them...In the past the DFG succesfully planted turkeys in California....The program was a huge success and being an avid turkey hunter I am grateful and they've had many other success....Having said that most of issues the DFG has been involved in recently, such as the Prospect Island situation have been total failures.....We can agree to disagree and that's fine, but I come from a background where you do what you are paid to do....What kind of a country would this be if police or fire fighters only did thier duty if they liked the people that were in danger? That's crazy! In my view public servants are sworn to do thier duty so long as they are physically able to do so.......I'm stretching for an example here but here it goes....Let's say you are a fireman and you hold the belief that all guns should be banned. If the local NRA office is on fire does that give you justification not to respond to the fire? Not in my world.......Public servants are in the public trust business...if they can't uphold the public trust they should find a private sector job....that's the bottom line.....If the DFG can't protect our fish and fisheries in a more efficient manner than they demonstrated at Prospect Island, we need to rebuild that organization......

My main problem with the DFG in relation to the Prospect disaster is that they had personel on site that stood by and did nothing to protect the state's fish....Beyond that the DFG has a 24 hour tip line that is apparently funded with tax payer/license money.....Being a tax payer/license holder I called the number to inform them of the pending disaster....I couldn't have been sweeter on the phone, yet all I got was the royal run around. I got the impression at the time that the DFG didn't care if the fish were dying and the unspoken attitude of the folks I spoke with conveyed the idea that I was bothering them by calling the tip line the department had set up to be used in just that type of situation.....Having a good attitude (which I had) or having a bad attitude shouldn't be a factor in whether or not the folks at the DFG follow through when they recieve a tip on thier tip line.....Once again they are not doing me a favor by doing their jobs anymore than I am doing my boss a favor when I do my job.....Me and all the other anglers in the state are paying the DFG to protect our fish....That sort of makes us anglers thier bosses and I expect them to do thier jobs, very well, very quickly and always with a smile......That is what I give them my hard earned license money to do!

FISHSTALKER
01-26-2008, 07:12 PM
Me and all the other anglers in the state are paying the DFG to protect our fish....That sort of makes us anglers thier bosses and I expect them to do thier jobs, very well, very quickly and always with a smile......That is what I give them my hard earned license money to do!

The problem that I see is your interpretation. You are saying here and are under the assumption that because you purchase a license and pay taxes, you are their superior/ boss. In fact you are not. The State of California and the chain of command relegates the Departments superior or boss.
As a citizen you have no authority to demand anything from any DFG individual let alone expect a smile. (I'm sure they will smile.)
Your hard earned license money buys you the right to legally fish in this State under the laws and amendments of the Fish and Game code. You do not have any entitlements over State employees.
If you have a performance complaint, then you should contact the appropriate office and superior to have it heard.

The Prospect Island fish kill that you mention above was reported and evidently action is pending. I can't speculate on it nor will I because I was not there or was I involved with it.

Cal.Kellogg
01-27-2008, 07:49 PM
My statements about anglers being DFG's boss was not meant to be literal. We pay license fees and the DFG is suppose to use those fees to undertake certain actions which basically translate to protecting the state's fish and fisheries...Plain and simple I believe that the department has been doing a poor job recently and is short changing the anglers that are funding the department......

For me one of the most glaring examples of the poor job being performed by the DFG is the situation at Prospect....Officers were on site and yet did nothing to protect the state's fish....In other words they failed to do thier jobs....When private citizens volunteered they were discouraged from attempting to rescue the fish by the DFG....The DFG started an investigation that was slated to have been completed and yet there is still no word from the DFG......

On a personal note, as I explained earlier I called the DFG tip line in good faith.....I got the run around.....they conveyed the feeling that I was burdening them by calling and even though they assured me I would be called back the call has yet to come.....I followed up, left a number of messages on various answering machines and still no return call........

Based on all this I can only conclude that at least in reference to Prospect Island that the actions of the DFG have been an utter failure...Since I am one of the folks that fund the agency....I feel that it is completely within my rights to point out these utter failures......Once again the state's fish belong to the people of the state....I am one of those people...we pay the DFG to protect our fish.....the fish are part of the public trust.....When I see an agency that I am funding fail to do that which they are being paid to do...you can bet I'm going to cry foul....I believe that the problems at the DFG go right to the top of the organization...Whether they are ineffective through thier own actions or if they have had thier hands tied I'm not in a position to speculate....All I can tell you is that they are failing and things need to change.....Every year we anglers pay more and get less in return....I don't mind the increases in fees as much as I hate to see the declines in fishing opportunities and the quality of the fishing experiences that do exist.........

In reference to the state's chain of command, you are absolutely correct....The buck stops at the desk of the governor....Unfortunately the govenor's policies have consistently put the state's fish and fisheries in jeopardy and he has put forward a number of policies that are against the best interests of both recreational and commercial anglers.....The governors zeal for delta water diversions and his zest for instituting fishing closures are only a couple of examples of how he systematically seeks to punish those of us that love to fish.....So long as he is on the top of the states power pyramid....I have little reason to expect meaningful reform in the state's fish and water policies or at the offices of the DFG and this is quite frustrating.....At some point we'll have a new governor and perhaps then we can get both the state's fisheries and those sworn to protect them back on the right path....Until then I intend to sound the alarm whenever I detect that the state's anglers, fish or fisheries are being short changed.

metalmouth
01-28-2008, 05:17 AM
Edited: