A Modest Proposal
- This topic has 22 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated Apr 16, 2010 at 2:55 am by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey guys –
I’m involved in a discussion on another board and I’m trying to think through the ramifications (and unintended consequences) of an idea I had.
My theory is that state DNRs primarily derive their fishing-related income through license sales.
Being from a state where there is no sales tax, it wouldn’t work here in New Hampshire. As it is, Fish and Game fights tooth and nail to get any monies from the general fund.
I don’t think the problem of enforcement is motivation either. I think it is a matter of shear numbers. Fish and Game in most states has been cut to the minimum. Most days they need to go in five directions at once.
You also have to be careful of definitions. In New Hampshire, fines are considered license revenue.
Rich –
Right, I know that some of these assumptions won’t be valid for every state. Put-and-take management is also not as much of an issue in some places (MT, WY, ID) as it is in others (AR, TN, GA, NC).
I would also point out that this creates an incentive to hire more enforcement officers; they can make their own salaries by upping patrols and catching more offenders.
Ok, so Zach’s idea is a good one but let’s talk for a bit about history and what’s actually going on.
Interesting idea.
Google the Pitman-Robertson Act. That was the answer to this type of problem for wild game, i’m not sure that specific law covers fish though. Maybe something similar to that for fisheries could be implemented?
http://www.nraila.net/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=103
I would like to see the numbers on fines as to how much revenue is actually generated by them every year. My guess is its not that much in comparison to the overall revenues generated by license sales. I’m not sure of the idea of providing such a large incentive on writing fines. Seems like you would probably find a dozen other petty things to fine besides fishing without a $10 piece of paper like you mentioned to generate revenue. Besides that – there are so many more positions at any DNR agency than just the enforcement officers… it would take alot of fines to support all of them.
Another potential snag to tying it to a sales tax is that then those monies would be subject to budget cuts, and all the other problems that we have with state government spending – think schools, roads, etc. I believe, at least in michigan, it is illegal to divert any funds raised by license sales, fees, etc. to anything other than the DNR budgets – ie. they can’t use license funds to build a new highway.
We have the same issue here in michigan where there is huge money being spent on stocking programs that support a kill fishery, as well as the HUGE charter boat industry. We also have the same problem with deer hunting – the regs are in direct contradiction to the soundest management practices that produce quality trophies, but most one weekend warriors aren’t looking for a trophy, just anything with horns. So, just like fishing, we get reduced down to a lowest common denominator.
I think the best way to provide these types of changes is to institute a perspective shift at the upper levels of the DNR/management angieces.. and that is probably a really tough thing to do.
We’ve been having a similar discussion on my board Zach. One of the problems or gripes I have is that our lakes have become pretty much off limits during boating season. Here in TN we pay a pretty hefty price for a fishing license and each year it becomes harder and harder to fish because of all the pleasure boaters. The DNR is also responsible for patrolling the lakes but receives little funding from the Pleasure boating community. I’d like to see them do away with a fishing license and make it all inclusive so that ANYONE in ANY type boat has to contribute equal amounts. And yes that would include canoes, rafts, inner tubes, etc… It’s about time the river tubing business’s started paying to use the resource as well.
I have argued for a number years now that the solution to underfunded MNR (thats what we call it here in Ont) or DNRs should and could be to get more funding from the fines that result from teh charges laid. I also argue that except for the most serious of offenses jail time should be nixed and instead up the fines substantially.
Here in Ontario for example and in Canada they are finally starting to levy some pretty hefty fines. I recall last year someone being fined 60,000 for cutting trees. Also recall an Outfitter being fined 100k for taking American hunters into Sask and poaching deer out of season.
Great.
Problem I have is the funds are going to the provincial coffers.
Our MNR is seriously underfunded, under manned, under everything. Prov govt’s are already strained for the usual reasons. The reasons to me are immaterial, the end result is I dont think the ministry of NR can count on more funding, nor do I think the general populace will like more taxes.
The only thing I dont like about the idea is that it could lead to abuses. Being being charged who probably shouldnt be, COs waking up on the wrong side of the bed and throwing the book at people for minor offenses etc, etc.
As for licensing. I disagree there.
It may be nothing more than a peice of paper but to me it denotes some responsibility and assumed understanding of the regs, etc.With regards to Bird watchers.
Yep, they are a large “user” group of the natural resources as are many other groups. They will argue that because they don’t harvest anything they shouldnt pay.I disagree.
They put strains on parks and resources. Paths are maintained, patrolled, run into truble and call 911 just like any other user group.
Here in Ontario we have an “outdoors” card that expires every 3 years and subsequent to that we pay for our hunting/angling liscences that are affixed to the card. I wouldnt mind at all if more user groups had to purchase the cards (if not liscences). At the end of the day people are using the resources, straining staff and budgets. Funds derived from fines etc would probably alleviate alot of the funding shortfalls for NR.As for licensing. I disagree there.
It may be nothing more than a peice of paper but to me it denotes some responsibility and assumed understanding of the regs, etc.With regards to Bird watchers.
Yep, they are a large “user” group of the natural resources as are many other groups. They will argue that because they don’t harvest anything they shouldnt pay.I disagree.
They put strains on parks and resources. Paths are maintained, patrolled, run into truble and call 911 just like any other user group.
Here in Ontario we have an “outdoors” card that expires every 3 years and subsequent to that we pay for our hunting/angling liscences that are affixed to the card. I wouldnt mind at all if more user groups had to purchase the cards (if not liscences). At the end of the day people are using the resources, straining staff and budgets. Funds derived from fines etc would probably alleviate alot of the funding shortfalls for NR.That is an interesting system.
Don’t forget that I’m also proposing general funding by sales of equipment (via the sales tax, yes).
In Arkansas, the AGFC supposedly turns a profit. Arkansas has very progressive game management philosophies; it is known for big fish and lots of ducks and quality deer and turkey hunting. For a state with terrible overall budget management and generally non-progressive fiscal policies, the AGFC does an absolutely excellent job. I believe they have a system there where the AGFC gets the money from license infractions.
Zach
It looks to me like fine revenue stays in each county and goes to education programs.
Seems odd that revenue isn’t that much.
In recent year the Gov’t has started pubishing enforcement convictions, fines etc. It adds up and keep in mind, that’s with enemic enforcement and in many cases paltry fines (although they are getting stiffer). The square miles each of our COs has to cover is absurd 🙂 Beef up staffing levels and the enforcement goes up.
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Enforcement/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_164545.html
You are also looking at a state with less than a million and a half residents and 10,000 square miles of area.
I live in Maryland and was checked 5 times last year by the DNR Folks. This was for fishing as I don’t hunt. This year, I have already been checked once. A friend has been checked 3 times in the past month.
One warden asked me why they don’t catch fly fishers doing anything illegal. I told him that most of us do not even keep fish. It seems to me that Md. has stepped up their efforts to halt illegal activity.
I do fish in Ga. and have never seen a warden. Maybe that is just luck or whatever. My fishing involves the hooch for the most part.
I had to spend close to $80.00 for a license in Ga. this year. The cost was around $35.00. No complaints from me as other states charge $70.00 to upwards of $90.00. Ga. was really behind on this.
I know there is poaching in Md. Why people poach trout is something I don’t understand. Not enough meat on them bones.
I feel that the Maryland DNR does a good job. Don’t know how they are funded, but will find out.
Maybe some of the Ga. folks can chime in on how often they are checked.Zach,
Without commenting on any specific approach, what you are doing is suggesting tactics without a clear understanding of the future or goal. Agreeing on that future or goal is made much more complex by vast differences in the various waters between states and geographic areas. What is the long term goal? That all trout waters are catch and release? That all trout waters have sustainable wild populations? That there are fewer (or more anglers)? There are more or less non-resident anglers? That there is no stocking of waters? That enforcement of angling laws is more focused? What about marginal coldwater fisheries that won’t sustain wild populations?
These are complex questions that need resolution before a solution is proposed. Here in Montana, a state where one would think that fly fishing and catch and release was a given, the opposite is true. The Sporting Goods stores (not the fly shops) are filled with hardware and all the stuff necessary to catch and KEEP bass, walleye, pike, trout, perch, etc. And they seem to do a booming business. Since the mid 1970s, Montana has not stocked any river with trout or warmwater species that I know of, yet Catch and KEEP is still prevalent on even the most storied of streams. In Alpine lakes and major reservoirs, stocking still occurs to sustain catchable populations that otherwise would not exist.
Whatever, the management approach that a state takes, it will result in some future state. Deciding what that future state should be (and getting consensus from the angling and non-angling public) on that future is far more important than suggesting a lot of solutions to a problem yet defined. In your post, you said: “Since license sales are the same for every person in the state, this creates a one-man, one-vote situation.”, which here in Montana is not really true as once you are 62 you pay no license fee to fish. That only describes a situation where the tactical logic made fails to satisfy the real question that needs resolution—What is the desirable endstate? Decide and agree on that, then the states can engage the tactics necessary to make it happen.
I would add to John’s point about Ontario’s licensing that our system has two licensing levels. 1 for Conservation (roughly $10 less) and 1 for regular. The regular license”Sportfishing” allows you to take up to the regulated limits 6 Whalleye for example, and the Conservation license allows maybe 2.
It appears to be a great system but since the money goes into the general coffers it means that the conservation officer still runs out of his gas budget half way through the month.The people doing the lions share of conservation, rehab etc. are the Trout Unlimiteds et al.
I have been guiding since 2003 and have never been “Carded” by a C/O. I simply do not see Conservation Officers on the water.Back when I was a teen we didn’t have a licensing system at all, It started in the 70’s if I recall. Everyone was upset at the time because now we had to pay for fishing – the fishing clubs and organizations wanted to boycott the licensing unless the funds were to be sent directly to the MNR. My understanding is that they were for a while but pre existing funds were redirected and replaced with the licensing money. Now even the licensing money goes into general funds. I think that is the definition of a slippery slope!
So be careful what you wish for Zach. Redirect the license fees and kiss it all goodbye.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.