possible licence increase

[south_metro_fish]

There was an article in the outdoor section star tribune of the paper today about a possible licence increase because of budget problems. I for one would be willing to pay the extra few bucks to keep the programs going. What do you guys think about it? Would you think twice before getting your fishing or hunting licence? That is what they are worried about is a drop in licences being bought with the incress.

[Chode2235]

It averages to be less than 2 bucks a month to fish now. Thats like a cup of coffee, I'm sure most here wouldn't even notice.

Doesn't hunting subsidize most of the DNRs other activities too?

I would like to see more exemptions for the old, young, veterans; and would like to see more transparency as to where the funds are being spent. I would love to see the DNR do something similar to recovery.gov.

I hope they just raise the price for the standard license rather than fragment it all with stamps, reduced limits, etc.

[BLT100]

I for one am all for it. I'll pay a little extra because it's what I love to do. Not only that, if less people buy licenses that means more fish for me!

[TubaDr]

I would not mind paying more as long as the DNR use the money in a smart way. I alway wonder what they use the money for I know it is not in law/reg. inforcement. I know that some money goes to stocking lakes and such but really how good is it to stock a lake and then have guys take over there limmit???

[bobbymalone]

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/budget/budgetplan/index.html

of course if you are looking to see that the DNR spent 89 cents on pencils for the commissioner's desk you will have to dig deeper.

[Walleye Guy]

Generally I am against raising taxes. However if they doubled the cost of resident license they would still be a bargain in my opinion. When you look at all the costs associated with either fishing or hunting, the cost of the license is nominal. Most guys spend more on bait, food, gas, beer etc. for each fishing outing than they do on their annual fishing license.

I also think we should have our non-resident license fees analyszed and aligned to what each state is charging Minnesotans to fish or hunt in their state.

If any increases were used to support maintaining or improving our ability to hunt and fish in the state, I would support increases.

[thatoneguy]

Generally I am against raising taxes. However if they doubled the cost of resident license they would still be a bargain in my opinion. When you look at all the costs associated with either fishing or hunting, the cost of the license is nominal. Most guys spend more on bait, food, gas, beer etc. for each fishing outing than they do on their annual fishing license.

I also think we should have our non-resident license fees analyszed and aligned to what each state is charging Minnesotans to fish or hunt in their state.

If any increases were used to support maintaining or improving our ability to hunt and fish in the state, I would support increases.

This would not be a tax, it's a user/access fee - and one that I think is a great bargain. Less than $1.50/month to fish for a year in Minnesota's legendary waters? Yeah, that's pretty low.

Like others upthread, I wouldn't mind seeing people like me in the alleged prime of their life pay a higher rate, and keep it affordable (or free) for kids, veterans, 70+ old-timers etc.

[Slabasaurus]

My cabin is in Wisconsin... best buddy and I have no issues paying the 50+ fee for an out of state license there. However, I do have a handful of friends who don't come up to fish there because, well, 50 bucks is too much. Then again, WI does offer weekend passes and whatnot, so a bunch of my buds do that.

So i think there would most certainly be a break even point.

However, the 17 bucks we pay now for in state licenses is one of the better deals around today. I'd pay twice that... gladly.

[TooTallTom]

This would not be a tax, it's a user/access fee - and one that I think is a great bargain.

User/ access fees are taxes by another name. They are more targeted, yes, but they are still taxes.

That said, I'd be happy to pay a higher fee so long as the money is going to the DNR (I won't say "spent wisely." ) and not a general fund. IMO, that should be one of the goals of fee-based taxation.

[showags]

If you just take a high level look at the budget, it appears the Fish and Game fund supports some of the other areas. I myself am all for user fees and against general taxing, so I have no problem with a price hike.

The thing that bothers me, is that some of the Fish and Game goes into the Parks and Trails fund, etc. Now, maybe that is rightfully so, but my problem is that there is no "trail pass" necessary to run/ride/ski the trails (unless I am unaware of one). Yet, if I want to hunt, fish, snowmobile, I pay a user fee of sort, again, which I am perfectly fine with. Between bait, beer, food, licenses, trail passes, Sportsmen pay more than their fair share. My question is when are the bikers/runners/skiers going to start paying their share?

[that_guy]

I personally gripe every year when its time to buy the new licenses. Thats mainly due to me being a tightwad with my money. However, the time I spend in the woods and on the lakes is priceless in my mind...I'd gladly pay triple for the ability to go. I'll just complain about it 3x as much!

As stated above, the money I pay each year for a license is such a small amount compared to the dollars I spend on equipment, food, fuel and beverages that a little more wouldn't hurt, I'd just buy less beer!

I've also been known to buy licenses for seasons that I would typically hunt but don't have time for, just so the DNR gets their money.

[bikeoutback]

I also think we should have our non-resident license fees analyszed and aligned to what each state is charging Minnesotans to fish or hunt in their state.

If any increases were used to support maintaining or improving our ability to hunt and fish in the state, I would support increases.

Agreed on both points. Now if the money is to pay some other fool brained thing putting in miles and miles of gaurd rail cable on highways that never needed it to begin with or well anything else except outdoor programs then I'm against it simply on principal.

[mrklean]

it is what it is the people that fish little to none probably bought the conservation license, the people who fish more often bought the normal license and if it goes up will probably still buy one

[bigwiz]

Im all for it!

[thatoneguy]

@TooTallTom

I couldn't disagree more. Taxes are generally something that everyone pays whether they like it or not, and they go into a common pot for common use.

User fees - at least in the instance we're discussing here - are voluntarily paid by individuals for access to/use of a specific resource. It could be fishing, it could be parks...you get the idea. If a user fee is increased, we have the option to pay it or not pay it. If a tax is increased, we have no similar recourse. The two really don't have much in common, imo.

[PrairieLakeLogJam]

I visit this site everyday around Ice-Up time and keep to my self, Until I see the Government trying to Pick my Pockets! I can tell you all this, The Mn DNR is flush with Cash! The state DNR just got over 30 Million dollars under the Obama stimulus package,the DNR gets millions every year from our Gas Tax, The DNR keeps all Proceeds from state Auctions from Confiscated Guns/Boats ect.. Millions from Hunting/Fishing/Atv license sales, plus the extra cash from Lottery, Clean water Act TAX that just past. Why would anyone want to give this anency MORE?

This WILL price people out of Fishing,,Maybe a dollar or two now and maybe a dollar or two for the next 100 years?

And I did not see the DNR stand up to Oberstar when He wanted to FEDERALIZE all the Lakes and Swamps in America. The Voters of the 8th took care of that, Thank God!

I would Not be so Fast to support any Tax or Fee Increase on anything!

Don't forget, People have to drive to these lakes and Gas WILL be hitting $5.00 per Gal soon.. Add up the REAL Cost of Supporting the Sport WE all Love and We are Funding the DNR,STATE & FEDERAL Governments SUFFICIENT! Best to Investigate where the money we send the DNR now,, You will find that more then 50% goes to Wages and benefits of Retired DNR members.

I want to see More people enjoy our Lakes and support our Sport and really don't what to see a C/Os Supervisor making $195k every year.

What happened to Public service in Government, with out the idea of Cashing in on the Tax payers with Life time Pension payments that 99.99% of Us could only dream about.

I don't want to Pee any of you Good people off, I just want you to Think before you Spend.

Cricket Cop

[St_Croix_Banks]

[quote

User/ access fees are taxes by another name. They are more targeted, yes, but they are still taxes.

[mnbuckhunter]

My license cost to fish MN lakes for the year: $17

My license cost to hunt MN whitetails from Sept - Dec: $106 (Bow, Rifle, Muzzleloader, a few bonus tags in case)

I'd be just fine with paying more for my fishing license. Actually, it seems every year I'm suprised at how cheap it is when I go to buy it. It's a lot more painful for me when I go to buy my deer licenses.... that being said, I'd still pay a few bucks (no pun intended) more per tag if I had too. It wouldn't keep me from hunting.

(My opinion of course is based the assumption that any increase would go toward game and fish. I wouldn't be as happy to fork over more money if it was going to be used to rip up some old train track and create a bike trail)

[Walleye Guy]

Taxes or users fees..... The payments support the operations and the running of our government in both cases. Some are just more specificly assigned and spent than others.

[croixflats]

I visit this site everyday around Ice-Up time and keep to my self, Until I see the Government trying to Pick my Pockets! I can tell you all this, The Mn DNR is flush with Cash! The state DNR just got over 30 Million dollars under the Obama stimulus package,the DNR gets millions every year from our Gas Tax, The DNR keeps all Proceeds from state Auctions from Confiscated Guns/Boats ect.. Millions from Hunting/Fishing/Atv license sales, plus the extra cash from Lottery, Clean water Act TAX that just past. Why would anyone want to give this anency MORE?

This WILL price people out of Fishing,,Maybe a dollar or two now and maybe a dollar or two for the next 100 years?

And I did not see the DNR stand up to Oberstar when He wanted to FEDERALIZE all the Lakes and Swamps in America. The Voters of the 8th took care of that, Thank God!

I would Not be so Fast to support any Tax or Fee Increase on anything!

Don't forget, People have to drive to these lakes and Gas WILL be hitting $5.00 per Gal soon.. Add up the REAL Cost of Supporting the Sport WE all Love and We are Funding the DNR,STATE & FEDERAL Governments SUFFICIENT! Best to Investigate where the money we send the DNR now,, You will find that more then 50% goes to Wages and benefits of Retired DNR members.

I want to see More people enjoy our Lakes and support our Sport and really don't what to see a C/Os Supervisor making $195k every year.

What happened to Public service in Government, with out the idea of Cashing in on the Tax payers with Life time Pension payments that 99.99% of Us could only dream about.

I don't want to Pee any of you Good people off, I just want you to Think before you Spend.

Cricket Cop

I agree with you. I just don't understand why so many are willing to open their pocket books like they were at a fancy restaurant. Sure the price of a license is more than fair but why give more if it not needed and if it is needed why tell them they would pay double or triple.

[Chode2235]

I agree with you. I just don't understand why so many are willing to open their pocket books like they were at a fancy restaurant. Sure the price of a license is more than fair but why give more if it not needed and if it is needed why tell them they would pay double or triple.

I dunno. I guess a lot of us think of it as an investment. Look at all the great fishing we can do for $17/year.

Most of us would gladly invest (you see a lot of posts about using the money well) in better fishing on our lakes, and the license fee is the most direct way to do it.

Sure you can also get involved with TU, Muskies Inc., DU, or whomever and do some really great stuff too.

Taxes and fees aren't necessarily a bad thing, most people just want competent government that doesn't throw away their money.

To alter the Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote: "I don't mind paying [more for my license] with it I buy [better fishing]."

[popriveter]

I'm glad they introduced the conservation license option. I've been able to introduce a number of friends to fishing this season who previously wouldn't give it a shot because they, "don't want to spend $17 on a license I might only use for 2 or 3 hours."

Easier to get newbies to give it a shot when it costs less than a movie ticket.

Plus, I almost never need to keep a limit of fish and my first-timer friends sure don't.

I buy my WI non-resident license every year to spend 5 or 6 days fishing in WI. You won't hear me complain about buying an MN fishing license. Heck, I buy my wife one every year and it NEVER gets used.

[TooTallTom]

@thatoneguy & St_Croix_Banks

In the case of taxes, money is taken from my pocket and put into the governmental coffers. In the case of user fees, money is taken from my pocket and put into the governmental coffers. That's what they have in common.

I do agree with your point about not necessarily having to pay user fees. But I would say that they are not optional if you want to use the thing to which the fee is attached (i.e. fishing without a license). Is the gas "tax" a user fee for the roads, or a tax? You aren't required by law to pay it; but if you want to drive, you must pay it.

[croixflats]

And doubling like some say still be fair it at 38 is going to make it even better? There has to be a cut off point otherwise its just over spending that gets us nowhere. It is an investment like you say but why over pay on an investment?

Quote:

Taxes and fees aren't necessarily a bad thing, most people just want competent government that doesn't throw away their money.

Could not agree more.

[Slabasaurus]

But I would say that they are not optional if you want to use the thing to which the fee is attached (i.e. fishing without a license). Is the gas "tax" a user fee for the roads, or a tax? You aren't required by law to pay it; but if you want to drive, you must pay it.

Oh the good old debate on a fee or a tax... Is the health impact fee a tax or a fee related to cigs? Is it the same now that t-paw's gone?

they are optional in that you don't have to fish. You choose to fish, and thus, by default, choose to pay the optional fee.

a fee is a tax in a candy shell. Regardless, I have no issues paying fees or taxes.

A gas tax is not for the roads, it's for use of gasoline. Gas can be used for any number of things that aren't driving on roads.

Probably getting to picky, and semantics are always fun to pick apart... but yeah. reality is, 17 bucks is not a whole lot to pay considering what you get out of it.

I went to 3 movies in 2010, and paid well over 17 dollars to see those three films. I think I put in 60+ days of open water fishing in 2010. Cost-Benefit ratio there is pretty striking.