Just wondering what everyone’s thoughts are on the increase of License Fees?
March 9, 2012 at 3:02 pm
#1276202
License-fee increase bills pending
-
March 9, 2012 at 3:13 pm #1047752
I don’t have a problem paying a little more as a resident, but when are we going to start gouging the non-residents. $500 plus to hunt deer in Montana, they can come here and hunt wolves for $230-$250. That is wrong. Very wrong. We need to do like the Dakotas. We have something you want (fish) pick 10 days a year and they can’t be on holidays or opening weekends of the season. I know….it will never change, but I feel a little better now.
March 9, 2012 at 3:19 pm #1047756Long overdue.
March 9, 2012 at 3:21 pm #1047757I am all for an increase in the fishing license, I agree its over due. But charge 15 bucks to access state walk in land to hunt? I think you will loose in that battle to fund that program.
Its 26 dollars for a husband/wife annual fishing license. An increase to 30 or even 35 is ok by my part.
March 9, 2012 at 3:25 pm #1047759I’m in full support as long as those funds stay in the DNR budget.
March 9, 2012 at 3:30 pm #1047761+1 Keep the money for the DNR, not the dependents.
March 9, 2012 at 3:34 pm #1047764The article says it goes tot he Game and Fish Fund, so yeah, I am for it. Hasn’t been raised in approximately 10 years, right?
March 9, 2012 at 3:42 pm #1047768Quote:
I’m in full support as long as those funds stay in the DNR budget.
Exactly!
March 9, 2012 at 3:49 pm #1047772Quote:
Quote:
I’m in full support as long as those funds stay in the DNR budget.
Exactly!
This sounds cool
but then they just trim the funds that the DNR was receiving from the General Funds 
hence no more $$’s for the DNR in reality… March 9, 2012 at 3:51 pm #1047773100% against. Raise the non-resident maybe, but for the most part, until they can effectively manage the monies they have, I see no advantage in pouring more water into the leaky bucket.
T
March 9, 2012 at 3:54 pm #1047776Quote:
100% against. Raise the non-resident maybe, but for the most part, until they can effectively manage the monies they have, I see no advantage in pouring more water into the leaky bucket.
T
For it if all increased revenues from license sales, go to the fight against select people’s being allowed to harvest out of season with gil nets
March 9, 2012 at 4:15 pm #1047785Quote:
Quote:
100% against. Raise the non-resident maybe, but for the most part, until they can effectively manage the monies they have, I see no advantage in pouring more water into the leaky bucket.
T
For it if all increased revenues from license sales, go to the fight against select people’s being allowed to harvest out of season with gil nets
G, I think you may have a winner with that idea.
March 9, 2012 at 5:01 pm #1047800Yeah, why not, over half my income goes for some tax, fee, permit, whatever, why not take more of what little I have left.
Personally I’d say fine if the gov’t had some sort of fiscal responsible program going on, but considering they haven’t a clue what they’re doing and that the money tree may someday soon be bare, nix on any increase.
Al
March 9, 2012 at 5:11 pm #1047806We’ll see if the opposition truly has “cooled” as stated in the article.
I bet adjusted for inflation it really won’t be much of an increase.
March 9, 2012 at 5:33 pm #1047820The “opposition” two years ago was the DNR. “The time is not right to raise licenses”.
‘course if they wouldn’t have spent $650,000. on a study to see if they needed to raise fees, we wouldn’t need to raise fees.
March 9, 2012 at 6:04 pm #1047827I was going to say the same thing on wasteful spending. Thats gubermunt for ya. Granted a small fee increase is no big deal in the grand scheme of it all if your talking about a business that is run properly but the DNR is not that business.
Get their house in order first then lets talk about if a raise is in order or not.March 9, 2012 at 6:22 pm #1047832Quote:
The “opposition” two years ago was the DNR. “The time is not right to raise licenses”.
It was nixed last year by the legislature, no?March 9, 2012 at 6:23 pm #1047833
Quote:
It was nixed last year by the legislature, no?
Correct Mr. Peoples Pug.
March 30, 2012 at 2:51 am #1054032Quote:
The “opposition” two years ago was the DNR. “The time is not right to raise licenses”.
‘course if they wouldn’t have spent $650,000. on a study to see if they needed to raise fees, we wouldn’t need to raise fees.
Let me translate that first quote for ya Brian, it was spoken by Assistant Commissioner Bob Meier in 2010… “Governor Tim Pawlenty, through his political appointee Mark Holsten…has instructed me to tell you all that we don’t need any license fee increases. Chant it with me now…no new fees or taxes. And Remember to vote T Paw in 2012!”
Secondly, a question for you Brian, because I know you work with a lot of DNR folks. Have you met any DNR Fish and Wildlife officials that specialize in running focus groups, collecting market research, trending economic policy decisions? Maybe they should hire a couple so they don’t have to outsource it to Responsive Management and Southwick and Associates in another ten years. You know darn well the legislature is going to ask for some reasons for an increase and some comparisons. BTW, Where’d ya find the 2/3rds of a million dollar figure?
I love ya bud and I’m nominating you for next year’s Game and Fish Fund Budgetary Oversight Committee.
Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.