|
|
Location: Menasha, WI | I was e-mail this today by a friend in the DNR fisheries department.. any thoughts????
Current fishing and hunting fees, some the same price since 1992 and
1997, can't sustain current conservation programs and cover inflation,
rising fuel prices and other operational costs. A modest increase in
license fees will keep Wisconsin's conservation budget in balance.
Proposed fee increases will only allow the current downsized
conservation programs to continue. Without a fee increase, hunting and
fishing opportunities and services will be cut even more
Here are the expected cuts if there is no fee increase:
>Cut 25 of 205 conservation wardens
>Cut $2.6 million from the wildlife program
>Cut 30 wildlife jobs
>Cut wildlife population surveys
>Eliminate habitat management on state land
>Close wildlife education centers
>Cut 6 land planning jobs
>Cut $2.14 million from the fisheries program
>Cut 27 fisheries jobs
>Stop operations at 2 more fish hatcheries, one Lake Michigan egg collection weir, most outlying ponds
>Cut musky stocking by 50%
>Cut walleye stocking by 50%
>Cut northern pike stocking by 30%
>Cut all inland trout production by up to 70%
>Cut warm water habitat work 50%, trout habitat 25%
>Close some service centers
>Shift more public info work to wardens, biologists
Edited by CPRMASAP 3/28/2005 7:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'd gladly pay an increased license fee, but that's me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 207
Location: Mpls, MN | For the amount of fun I have fishing an increase wouldn't phase me. I don't fish near as much as many as you folks but even if I only went out 10 times a year(yah right), still cheaper then a movie or a ball game. Long as the money from the inceases are kept for that budget and not some general fund and they can explain it, I think it can be justified.
Edited by mm12463 3/28/2005 10:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Gladly pay an increased WI license fee than watch your DNR get slashed like here in IL (50% cuts)!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1438
| Gladly pay the increase. I know the wardens and how much work they already do on their own time. Can't imagine what a cut of 25 more will do. I'll have to check in on that.
I'm wondering if that 205 is the number they are supposed to have or what they currently have. That's a number game I've seen the state play over and over.
Scott |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Wow, that's depressing. Wisconsin's natural resources are our greatest legacy to our children and one of our biggest economic driver's. Have the folks (legislators and DNR management) in Madison seriously considered what this does long term? I'd gladly pay an increased license fee- even add on the cost of a muskie stamp!
Have you seen an Alien?
Al |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Without a doubt I would support a fee increase. It costs me just cents a day in license money to fish throughout the year.
I can see where they may have problems however. I know there are a bunch of people that would just as soon see the DNR gone altogether, not me mind you, and any fee increase to these people is seen as just more money out of their pockets to support the evil empire. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 389
Location: Presque Isle Wisconsin | Ill Galdy pay an increase also; however Id like to see the funds allocated back to wildlife resources ;instead of the general fund which is now the case. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | At least Wisc has a DNR here in Ill it's almost non exsistant due to the Gov's cuts
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | I don't like the idea of paying more for liscenses, but fully understand why it needs to be done. However, if the money continues to go into the general fund, I'm deadset against that because they see increasing liscense fees as an easy way to bring in more money without causing a big uproar through the majority of the public. It's the "no matter what, they'll pay it," strategy.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 686
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin | Sad to say but we need the increase or we'll soon be seeing the effects of the proposed cuts. I was told that they may make an increase even though the licenses are already for sale, they do have the ability to do that, so it would not be another year of waiting for the increase but they would sure miss out on alot of cash since most people have already purchased their licenses. We sure have the right people in these offices don't we???!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
| Likewise, I am more than willing to pay a license increase. $32 is cheaper than 6 Shad Raps, not a big deal. What does concern me is that 100% of the fishing licenses don't go back to fishing. Management and Convervation (including wardens) should be the only place our money goes. It should be in the hands of parents and other people in the industry to bring youth to the sport while the DNR makes sure that it is worth bringing them to. I am very excited about the new determination within DNR employees. From the ones that I know there seems to be an increasing passion to do this and do it right. I am confident we have a great angling future ahead of us! |
|
| |
|
| I support the increase - but only if they are used by the WDNR for related. It's well worth spending more on, if needed and it looks like it is needed at this time.
It will be crucial that these funds are dedicated/fire-walled, if these funds trickle into the general fund - we will not gain on this problem. You may have seen this last week on the "In Wisconsin" TV show, "Focus on Energy" funds are collected in utility bills for the express purpose of funding renewable and energy efficiency funds. Curretnly over $50 million of those funds have been diverted (most believe inappropriately, some believe illegally) by the Governor/approved by the Assembly to the general fund to pay down the state's budget deficit. Those funds are collected from each of us monthly as gas and electric ratepayers on our utility bill - but are now diverted, actually confiscated by State Government - not to save energy or promote renewable energy - which was the purpose of the fund.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the WDNR and Scott Hassett - they are a first class, well run organization and need our support. I support an increase in the hunting/fishing fees - with the express proviso that the exisitng funding be maintained and that any new revenues be used exclusively and soley dedicated to DNR needs and that $0 be diverted by the Governor/Legislature to pay for unrelated expenses. We have a dangerous precedent with this Governor/Legislature in that it is now happening with "Focus on Energy". Since the WDNR is a "creature of statue"and takes direction from the Governor - if the Governor wants to raid these new revenues -Secretary Scott Hassett will be powerless to defend against such a raid on our funds.
All citizens will need to be vigilant to make sure that any increase approved (your money) be used as intended. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| I also support the increase. I can fish all year long for much less than it costs for one day of golfing on many courses. I believe if the average person understood all that is affected by license fees there would be less resistance to fees. Fishing licenses are one of the best "entertainment" bargains available. |
|
| |
|
| For those of us who fish a lot and year round it is a small price to pay. For those who fish a couple of times a year, I would imagine the increase wouldn't be taken as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 678
Location: Twin Cities, MN | I have been paying for an out of state license since 1992, and I do not mind paying more, IF, IF, the money goes into the DNR budget.
As I currently live in MN, I am wondering if the same crappy situation exists in WI where the money gets dumped into a general fund, and then you have a free for all fight for who gets the money ?
I do not want my extra money going somewhere else, I want it ear-marked for the WI DNR.
I am sure that idea will go over well with the the people in Madison who like to play with tax money like others play with Monopoly money.
Pal |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Permits will go up, if they don't and the DNR cuts stocking of Walleye and Musky, there goes millions in tourism revenue...do you think Wisconsin will let that happen??...Noooo Wayyy, hell we don't even have a high-way toll for tourists.
Please don't think I'm saying "lets tax out-of-staters", I'm not, all I'm saying is that permits will go up rather than decreasing stocking and potentially hurting tourism.
I'd pay 100.00 a season if need be, 100.00 buys you a night out with the little lady, think of all the fishing you do....it'd be worth it. |
|
| |
|
| Pal is - right on. I don't think any of us would mind if the fishing license goes up a tad - unless our new money gets lost - blended in with the general pot of the State and then gets spent for reducing state debt, buying a new state office building - or whatever else unrelated to fisheries & wildlife management & protection. If the new increased revenues weren't precisely targeted to the DNR - this would be simply paying higher taxes. It wouldn't protect or better manage natural resources. We should all be miffed if we start paying more for the fees and then the Governor & Assembly gloms onto this new money and mixes it into and then lose it in the state budget! They should easily be able to promise that it gets earmarked and escrowed just for that purpsoe - but if they can't - why should we support it?
It's just not a simple matter of do you support higher fees or not - there's more to the story (as Pal is suggesting above). It would be wise & prudent to tell our Governor & Assembly representative - not to allow 1 cent of your money and my money given to the State for our hunting/fishing fees to be used for anything other than natural resources protection/management. No, not one penny of it. If the fees are raised and they are tightly controlled and spent wisely on DNR priorities - things should be just fine.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1916
Location: Greenfield, WI | Unfortunately, the current Governor doesn't have a high priority of interest in the Natural Resources. When he was sworn in, all his Department heads got raises except the DNR Secretary, who got a cut. I'm not saying that any of them deserved raises, but the relative change was down, and that showed his interests.
I was on the previous Governor's Task Force for Study of Invasive Species. From a fishing perspective, there are a lot of "nasties" that are entering both the interior lakes as well as Lake Michigan. The day after he was sworn in I received a form letter from the Governor's office letting me know that the Task Force was being disbanded!
From a funding standpoint, there is too much burocracy between the top and the "worker bees" (the wardens) level. They wouldn't see any increase money anyway, even if increases happened. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | You know, I'd gladly pay as much as a $5.00 increase for all my licenses, as well as on my boat regisrtation, but, given the amount of licenses that I purchase for this household, it is a significant increase for me. 3 fishing licenses, 3 gun deer licenses, 3 small game, and 3 bow deer, for my wife, my son and myself, that would mean an additional $60.00 a year for me. As much as I wish my daughters were into the outdoors, I'm sort of glad that I don't have to purchase their licenses and outfit them too. |
|
| |
|
| If it was up to me I would raise them even more than the proposed increase.
WI resident $25 dollars for all ages above 10
Out of state residents (Illinois)$75 dollars all ages above 10 (Family\weekend packages available)
Out of state residents (Minnesota) $45 dollars (Family\Weekend packages available)
If they dont want to pay if tuff! Going to a movie now is $7.50 for an hour and a half.
The bang for the buck you get with a fishing license is seriously underrated.
How much does it cost you to fill up your full size trucks $75 bucks??
$30 dollars a year for an out of state license is a joke imo. Any serious fisherman will cough it up.
This is only if it actually helps the WDNR and our fisheries. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | Why $75 for Ill and $45 for Minn, I would pay the $75 but Should be equal for all Out of state
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1310
Location: Washington, PA | I agree, license fees really aren't that expensive relatively speaking. A years worth of enjoyment for the price of a night out. |
|
| |
|
| JohnMD - 3/30/2005 9:49 AM
Why $75 for Ill and $45 for Minn, I would pay the $75 but Should be equal for all Out of state
Minnesota has over 10,000 lakes and Wisconsin has over 14,000 lakes and have by far better and more places to fish imo.
In the summer time you see people from Illinois coming to Wisconsin to fish, camp, hike, explore, boat, swim, etc...
They use our states resources. You dont see a lot of people heading to Illinois to fish. Why?? Because Wisconsin and Minny have
better fisheries. Both states have more forests and have more of a "getaway" type of feel to it than Illinois.
Dont get me wrong I have nothing against Illinois, I just think Minnesota and Wisconsin are more similiar in recreational activities than Illinois.
If someone from Illinois takes their family camping\fishing in Wisconsin\Minnesota it is a real treat for them to be in a place with so much outdoor and recreational activities. Somebody going camping or fishing in Minnesota from Wisconsin and vice versa is not experiencing anything much different. Its basically the same thing.
My 2 cents... |
|
| |
|
| BTW- that was me who wrote the post above. |
|
| |
|
| Basic economics suggest that non-resident license fees should be lower than they are now and obviously equal for all out-of-state visitors - a huge amount of money comes into this state by non-resident visitors. We want to welcome the fine people of Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa,Michigan to enjoy these God-given beautiful natural resources that we are fortunate to be stewards for. Non-residents gladly pump millions of dollars in the states economy and Wisocnsin's tax base in order to enjoy Wisconsin's natural resources.
An earlier commenter made the following comments:
" If it was up to me I would raise them even more than the proposed increase. WI resident $25 dollars for all ages above 10. Out of state residents (Illinois)$75 dollars all ages above 10 (Family\weekend packages available) Out of state residents (Minnesota) $45 dollars (Family\Weekend packages available)
If they dont want to pay if tuff! Going to a movie now is $7.50 for an hour and a half. The bang for the buck you get with a fishing license is seriously underrated."
I agree that fishing & hunting are fun - a lot of fun! It's well worth it to me and am willing to pay my fair share. I am nervous about this particular Governor & Legislature and based on their current practices - don't trust them handling these proposed increased fees. Everyone is free to just write the State a check to the Dept of Revenue to use as they see fit - to help balance the budget.
The comment - " If it was up to me I would raise them even more than the proposed increase."
I have a question - if you had to pay an additional $100/yr for fishing/hunting fees - and you knew your new increased fees of $100 (for your yourself and/or family) would be used exclusively to reduce the state tax deficit - and not in any way help the natural resources(stocking, more wardens, more land acquisition, wetland protection, etc..) would you then feel good about paying this hidden tax? If the current dramatic cost reduction steps suggested by the WDNR if no fees are increased, were taken and your fees still went up - would you feel that is appropriate and would you be glad to pay for that?
If these higher fees are collected - I think all citizens have a right to demand/expect that the new money collected be used directly by the WDNR and nothing else. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | BTPF: Perhaps it's just me but I have to disagree with your logic, Why should someone pay more or less than a person from another state just because thier resources are similar. The Price of an Out of State License should be equal be it $75, $45 or even $100 no matter what State the Person is from.
Sorry but I Have to disagree on the Price structure you stated
|
|
| |
|
| JohnMD - I totally agree with your opinion on a variable/different cost to various citizens in various States. That previous comment doesn't seem to add-up.
I live in WI and fish in ILL several times a year - I enjoy IL fishing just every bit as much as WI fishing. In Feb/March S. Illinois is among the very best possible places to fish for skis. I appreciate the reasonable fees to visitors in Ill and I am pleased to do business in S. Ill with local businesses and put a little money in the local economy. I love fishing Kinkaid when WI is iced up solidly.
I would think it odd - if in ILL if two people wanted to fish, for example, one was from WI the other from MI sought a license and were presented with two different prices based on the state they lived in. That would be a weird situation.
Keep the fees down and keep the big picture in mind - let's not be "pennywise and pound foolish" For every visitor who visits/enjoys Wisconsin and pays for a license - you can be sure they are pumping money into food, gas, supplies and all kinds of things in order to fish/hunt. Hopefully they are having a wonderful time, feel welcome and want to come back!
|
|
| |
|
| Im saying that Wisconsin and Minnesota would have a "border pact" kind of like not paying out of state tuition when a student from Minny goes to a college in Wisconsin and vice versa. All other states would pay the higher rate. I also want to say again that I would only support it if we knew where the money was going.
Gasoline has jumped up a dollar a gallon in 5 years which equals to be about an extra $1000 dollars a year for the average person. For the average fisherman who drives\tows alot its probably 3 times that. Im just saying you have to admit that someone who comes over from out of state pays 30 dollars for a license and then takes out 25 panfish a day for 150 days is getting a heck of a deal?
I dont think it would slow down the tourists near as much as the cost of gasoline rising does.
If I flew to Utah in the winter and wanted to go snowboarding you can bet Im gonna pay a lot more for an out of state
ski pass.
Taking your family out to dinner $35
Taking your wife and kids to the theater for an hour and a half with treats $50+
Filling up your truck/suv $40 one week.
Paying your cable bill a month $50-100 dollars.
An all year OUT OF STATE fishing license 30 bucks??? Heck, some baits are more
expensive than that.
|
|
| |
|
| Okay BTPF - I see what you are getting at a little better now.
Yeah, a fishing/hunting license is a good value compared to many other things - for sure. Sometimes when I'm fishing and enjoying that I think about how much fun it is and apprecaite how cheap it is on a cost/ hour basis - its a sweet deal, that is cheap entertainment. I used to golf a lot and everytime you go out and do that you drop $50-75+ for 18/
with a cart, tips, food, beverages, parking, etc...... Of go to a baseball/football game - man that gets pricey.
I think we all agree that this new higher fee money must be spent on DNR related expenses! That's key - or otherwise we are backpeddling. |
|
| |
