|
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Would you support a license fee increase for annual fishing licenses (resident and non-resident) in MN or WI? How much?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 470
Location: Blaine, MN | I would have no problem paying more to participate in the activities I pursue outdoors. What the state would do with the additional funds, although mostly out of my control, would worry me somewhat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| I’ve bought fishing licenses in over a dozen states and Canada, and have had a lifetime permit in my home state since I was 18. I’ve never bought one and thought to myself that they were too expensive. I enjoy the opportunity to fish, and do not mind supporting those who support the fisheries that make those opportunities better and ultimately possible.
Ryan
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 470
Location: Blaine, MN | $26.00 a year seems inexpensive to me in the grand scheme of things( what you told me a UT license cost). just like I have no problems giving WI $65.00 for my wife and I to fish there. I wish MN would raise fees to get some of these outdoor projected budgets back in the black going forward, and no, not just the ones I participate in, it's not about 1 person or 1 group of people. But all of the programs that exist to enhance outdoor experiences throughout the state. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3497
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hiya,
If it was guaranteed that the extra dollars were to go directly to the DNR for fisheries management/stocking, and more DNR officers on the ground, I'd pay upwards of $15 - $20 each year. If the extra $$ could be tagged by me as to what source of fisheries management it would help, all the better.
Not sure in MN how much of the $$ gained by license fees goes directly to the government first (it might be all, then the DNR is allocated a $$ amount from there...gut says this is the way it happens). If it does happen this way, I would NOT support a license increase since I feel the vast majority of those funds would not make it back to the DNR.
Steve
|
|
| |
|
| How much are you guys paying in WI and MN? |
|
| |
|
| VMS - 12/8/2011 4:03 PM
If it was guaranteed that the extra dollars were to go directly to the DNR for fisheries management/stocking, and more DNR officers on the ground, I'd pay upwards of $15 - $20 each year. If the extra $$ could be tagged by me as to what source of fisheries management it would help, all the better.
I agree 100% here in Michigan. As long as I knew the money was going to the right cause I would pay much more than the $29 currently charged for an all-species license. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | VMS - 12/8/2011 3:03 PM
Hiya,
If it was guaranteed that the extra dollars were to go directly to the DNR for fisheries management/stocking, and more DNR officers on the ground, I'd pay upwards of $15 - $20 each year. If the extra $$ could be tagged by me as to what source of fisheries management it would help, all the better.
Not sure in MN how much of the $$ gained by license fees goes directly to the government first (it might be all, then the DNR is allocated a $$ amount from there...gut says this is the way it happens). If it does happen this way, I would NOT support a license increase since I feel the vast majority of those funds would not make it back to the DNR.
Steve
http://www.dcnr.state.al.us/research-mgmt/sport-fish.cfm
I realize it is Alabama, but it had one of the better write ups I have read. Your license fees directly help the resource. Your fee could not be 'tagged' to be diverted to a special fund.
Edited by Pointerpride102 12/8/2011 4:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32906
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'd have no issue paying $100 for Sue and I to fish. I'd also pay that for whitetail tags, for us both. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I'd like to hear from some of the no increase votes and why they would not support it. |
|
| |
|
Location: Latitude 41.3016 Longitude 88.6160 | I would support a $15.00 increase 100% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
| $50 non resident WI
$31.50 on resident IL
Myself being from IL, already think non resident fishing licenses are high no matter what sate you are in. |
|
| |
|
| I support it cause I already have a lifetime  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8806
| I pay $70 for the WI NR license (includes inland trout and great lakes salmon stamp) That's already high. If I could be assured that any additional money would go directly to muskie efforts and not to stock more walleyes so the Indians can spear and net them all with reckless abandon, I might consider an extra $10. But as it stands now, I'd rather donate my money to my MI chapter, voluntarily, so I know that it's going to stock more muskies in more places. |
|
| |
|
| Not a chance I am paying the government more in the middle of a recession. We all have to learn to live with less and better budget our money.
I voted yes to the Legacy Amendmanet in MN and absolutely regret it. Money for sculptures and possibly to keep the Vikes. What a total joke. One thing is for certain politicians will use the money for whatever they want and the tax or fee increase will never go away. |
|
| |
|
| NY increased their license fees a few years ago and it sucks. For a nonresident it used to be $35, now I pay $70. That's like buying a license every year and never being the water. Who wants that?
I don't know why anyone would want to pay more for anything. I've never went past a gas station and said, "Gee, I wish I could be paying $5/gal, $3.50/gal just isn't enough." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you guys must not have kids that are 16
raise a license to 50 bucks and you'll run off a big group or turn them into poachers ...
still trying to understand what's so bad about our waters and fisheries ... lots of complaining going on that's for sure. 9 whiners for every 1 happy angler anymore. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | In the big picture of fishing expenses licences are a very small portion of the total cost. If you can keep the Politicians from messing with the fees and somehow get them to go directly to fishery programs than a license fee increase is probably all right. I might be a little concerned that a large increase would prevent some people from buying a license at all and just saying the fishing is getting too expensive and give it up completely. Perhaps a slippery slope? I'm sure it's coming, sooner or later. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
| Sled, I would agree with you if the license for a 16 yr old was the same as an adult but if they kept them at a reduced rate like they are now, $7 for 16 and 17 yr old, I would support it. (WI)
I know I have bought a couple of those licenses for friends of my son who didn't fish but came up to our cottage. At least one really got hooked on fishing, making it a good investment in my mind. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | A license increase for the state of MN is inevitable and much needed to fund projects that should be underway. I am 100% for an increase. We discussed this in depth last year amongst the MMPA. I forget the point of diminishing returns and the other stats though.
Edited by kevin cochran 12/8/2011 7:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | is the interest to maintain the level of success that came from the first stocking class maturity or what you end up with in a sustained balance once that's happened?
what is the "goal"???
most of what i hear is so that there's a 50" on every spot ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jonnysled - 12/8/2011 6:09 PM
is the interest to maintain the level of success that came from the first stocking class maturity or what you end up with in a sustained balance once that's happened?
what is the "goal"???
most of what i hear is so that there's a 50" on every spot ...
A lot of funding for the DNR comes from license sales. License sales are down, thus funding is down. Diminishing funds, diminishing services. I would think maintaining the status quo would be the first goal.
Creek surveys, pop estimates, law enforcement, stocking etc. All cost money. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8806
| jonnysled - 12/8/2011 6:16 PM
still trying to understand what's so bad about our waters and fisheries ... lots of complaining going on that's for sure. 9 whiners for every 1 happy angler anymore.
Well... WI is better than it's been any time since I've been fishing there. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | two ways to approach it too ...
1. sell what you sell at a higher price
2. sell more of what you are selling
lean too hard on 1. and you can end up losing money ... 2. is a guaranteed increase in revenue vs. 1. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jonnysled - 12/8/2011 6:39 PM
two ways to approach it too ...
1. sell what you sell at a higher price
2. sell more of what you are selling
lean too hard on 1. and you can end up losing money ... 2. is a guaranteed increase in revenue vs. 1.
I agree...but how do you stop the downward trend? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
| Except when it's a monopoly or when you control what you spend. The DNR is not required to provide resources or exist, they could just close up shop. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32906
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That would be an extraordinarily bad thing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
| I should have finished, I was just trying to point out simple economics cannot be used in this case. It’s not standard supply and demand also the cost structure is not as simple either. I did not want to imply that people are going to stop buying licenses or DNR will close or any other scare tactics. Also I agree that fishing is good and I guess sustainability would be the main reason to raise rates. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| I don't believe anyone is saying they want to pay more for no reason, which I know of, but if paying more means, assured continued improvements, or it becomes a necessity to keep fishing quality from going down. Then I would pay more without much thought into it. If I’m paying more because the programs are poorly managed or funds are wasted for non-fishing related projects, then I say no thanks. It is the day and age that nothing much is free anymore, like it or not that’s just the way it is. And, also there aren’t too many activities I know of that I can enjoy as much as I do for the amount of time that I do that is even close to as cheap as a fishing license affords me to. People can live in a dream world all they want and think that no one should have to pay to fish, but the reality is that if there were no license requirements and regulations, fishing would not be of much interest to any of them as the quality of the fisheries would be horrendous. I guess some people may think that human population control should be enacted over the fish population control.
Ryan
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
Location: Arpin, WI | I would have to say no on a higher fee. I had a lot of free time this summer and so did many other people and they decided to go fishing also from what i saw there is no decline in license sales. Would much rather the DNR learn how budget like everybody else has to do. I do however support joing a club and making a donation that goes directly to the cause
Edited by kelz 12/8/2011 9:17 PM
|
|
| |
