Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jameson

hunters still paying for the fisherman

15 posts in this topic

source: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/gamefishoversight/2008_boc_report.pdf

Quote:
Ongoing Issues

Fishing Overspending and Wildlife Underspending

Current Situation: Fishing expenditures continue to exceed fishing revenue, while wildlife expenditures continue to be less then wildlife revenue. On November 15, 2008, the DNR provided short and long-term recommendations to the House of Representatives and Senate Policy and Finance Committees and divisions with jurisdiction over natural resources on Game and Fish Fund receipts. Since that time, there has been no action or guidance from any legislative group.

Problem: The spending imbalance continues to be a concern of the Wildlife Operations Subcommittee because we believe that wildlife/fishing expenditures should be proportional to revenues for these activities.

Proposed Solution: Please note that in the new issues section of this report we are recommending that both hunting and fishing license fees be increased to ensure the financial wellness of the Game and Fish Fund. In addition to this increase, we are recommending that any increases or decreases in appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Division of the DNR take into account the current imbalance and be used to reduce this imbalance.

Quote:
Fishing and Hunting License Fee Increase

Current Situation: When the dedicated accounts are removed, the forecasted amount of appropriations out of the Game and Fish Fund currently exceeds the forecasted amount of revenues coming into the Fund, thus creating an imbalance.

Problem: With the imbalance of appropriations/revenues within the Game and Fish Fund, the current forecast has a projected negative fund balance by the end of fiscal year 2012. By statute, the Fund cannot operate with a negative balance.

Proposed Solution: The Wildlife Operations Subcommittee recommends to the BOC that the DNR propose a package of license fee increases sufficient to restore the Game and Fish Fund balance, provide for sufficient carry-over balances and provide for inflationary increases for the next 4 bienniums. We are recommending a time period of 4 bienniums (8 years) because historically license fee increases occur on average about every 8 years.

It appears that the legislature has ultimate control of the price of a hunting or fishing license. The DNR proposed solutions and their has been no action from any legislative group. So it appears hunters will continue to support fisherman (think welfare).

Maybe I am the only one ticked off by this. As a purchaser of a MN lifetime fishing license some 10 years ago, and now also an avid hunter, I feel that I am paying for something that is already paid for.

Anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I think hunting gets more than a fair share of management from outside scources that fishing does not bennifit from so I think it evens out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

croixflats could you possibly explain a little more? Not doubting you but I'd like to see some details.

For now I have to agree with Jamison, the hunters in the this state are certainly getting the short end of things. I think we all know the duck, turkey, and pheasant populations need some help, not to mention what could be done to free up more public hunting land. There is no reason that the out of state fishing licenses could go up but then you would have all the resorters throwing a fit, and we all know politicians will back down real fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to be controversial but If you look at programs like CRP and WMA's and State forest areas the hunter benefits from them but not the fisheries. I dont know if it went through or not but that Blandings deal up north is not DNR money, witch I support.

I am not saying more investment should not be put into hunting and wildlife quite the opposite of what I would like to see.

I just think the argument of hunters not getting the fair share is not there.

Do I think maybe some of the fishery be scaled back, yes but that is a personal opinion on what programs I feel are excessive, listing them I think would spark conversation and take away from the thread.

By the way its a good thread you started Jamenson well worth diving into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, a divisive argument between hunters and fisherman. These always turn out well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, a divisive argument between hunters and fisherman. These always turn out well.

And those of us who do both end up just beating the stuffings out of ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DNR could have easily recouped approximately $2 Million EACH YEAR if they would have put their God almighty stamp of approval on the two-line fishing law.

Don't come crying for money now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being an out of state fisherman, and a state of AZ hunt/fisher person, the president of the AZ Deer Assoc, i hear the same thing from our GFD. While our dept is run solely on the funds from license and tag money, raising the price of an out of state license is not going to fix the money that is not there. If they did an increase across the board both in and out of state licenses, you would see a better overall dollar amount generated. While this is going to stir reactions, putting the cost to bring more dollars to the state fisheries is not going to set well with out of state folks. We pay for hotel, meals, transportation, and the same costs that you all have. We do as tourist add money to the overall budget, maybe it is a showing of the times where people are not doing many out of state trips or spending money period, taxing the people that do spend tons of money is not the way to go. If your state would not use money for the general budget, they might be able to succeed with their missions and not force other sportsman or tourist to pay the remaining part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And those of us who do both end up just beating the stuffings out of ourselves.

No doubt there are a lot of us in this boat, I really don't know any hunters who don't like to fish. However I buy between 3-5 deer tags a year, most years five $$$$$, small game license $, duck stamp $, turkey license $, and I plan on giving bear hunting a try some time down the road $. You also have pheasent stamps $, moose $, elk $, trapping $, and prairie chicken $ licenses to pile on. Then you also have special early hunts that can also add up $$$.

Hunting: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Fishing: $

Then the DNR spending could be close to opposite of that, a little more balance would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its safe to say Hunters and Fishermen fund the majority of the DNR budget. Lets call them Sportsmen. That takes care of the argument.

Are there any other user groups that benefit from Sportsmen funding the DNR. smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Hunting: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Fishing: $

Then the DNR spending could be close to opposite of that, a little more balance would be nice.

Hunting: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Fishing: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

There...is that better? grin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its safe to say Hunters and Fishermen fund the majority of the DNR budget. Lets call them Sportsmen. That takes care of the argument.

Are there any other user groups that benefit from Sportsmen funding the DNR. smile

DNR budget: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/budget/op_budget_0708/budget_full.pdf

All the DNR divisions, other than waters and parks, receive money from the game and fish fund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Hunting: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Fishing: $

Then the DNR spending could be close to opposite of that, a little more balance would be nice.

Hunting: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Fishing: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

There...is that better? grin

Good one swamptiger smile - I'm just thinking maybe the dnr can trim a little pork out of the fishing budget and maybe throw a little at some of the hunting issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, at least the money isn't going toward the arts. I'm happy to pay license fees, at least the $ is going toward something outdoors. Better than the $1000's of tax dollars that get spent on anything from a woodstock memorial, to a underground turtle crossing. I guess I'm not going to complain about my hunting $ going toward fishing initatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it appears hunters will continue to support fisherman (think welfare).

Ummmmmmm...... Thanks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0