MN License Fees

I got the following email from the MN DNR today. I would be happy to pay a modest fee increase in the near future because the current fees are low – they haven’t been increased since 2001 – and I believe the DNR will do good things with the money. The MN DNR is far from perfect, but they’re a friend of mine in the end.

I’m sure many others here received this same email:

Hunting, Fishing and Outdoor Recreationalists:

You are receiving this message because you signed-up for hunting and fishing news from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

The news I want to share is that the Game and Fish Fund – the fund that pays for conservation officers and a whole lot of game and fish work – is in dire condition. It is projected to go negative by as early as July 2013.

This means DNR will need to make significant cuts that affect the quantity and quality of hunting, fishing and natural resource protection unless the State Legislature approves license fee increases during the 2012 session. In my mind, failure to pass this fee increase will begin the rapid erosion of the quality hunting and fishing you have fought so hard to preserve over recent years—the outdoors legacy we will leave to our children and grandchildren.

If you have an opinion on this matter, I encourage you to express it to your local senator or representative. They are in session. They will listen to you. Now is the time to make a phone call or send a letter or e-mail. You can locate contact information on the Minnesota Legislature’s website at http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/.

The facts are:

•Hunting and fishing license fees have not increased since 2001. This is the longest period of time without a fee increase in more than 40 years.

• The Game and Fish Fund would have gone negative years ago had our agency not made numerous cost-saving reductions and benefitted from an increase in federal assistance (which bridged the funding gap for a short time, but peaked several years ago and is now in decline).

•Our proposed license adjustments are designed to raise revenue but do so in ways that encourage people to start hunting and fishing while retaining those who already participate.

Virtually every hunting, fishing and conservation organization in the state has voiced their support for increasing fees by a reasonable amount. That’s gratifying. So too is the fact that many newspapers support raising fees, in part because it is not a general tax but rather a specific user fee that hunters and anglers willingly support.

We outdoor lovers are facing many challenges. They include voracious leaping carp, unwanted fish and wildlife diseases, and the loss of habitat necessary to provide high-quality hunting and fishing. In the past, the conservation community has come together to voice its support for what is important. Today, it’s happening again. If you want your voice to be part of this chorus, please contact your lawmaker and share your opinion.

To learn more please visit: http://mndnr.gov/heritage

Thanks,

Tom Landwehr, Commissioner

MN Department of Natural Resources

Paycuts and layoffs are also an option.

Things are tough all over. Planning on spending $28M annually to inspect and wash boats atlandings is a complete waste of money. The fact that the DNR is thinking this would be a worthwhile use of funds – makes me think that the layoff and wage cut is a better idea.

Important to look at all sides of issues.

Dog

Quote:

---

Paycuts and layoffs are also an option.

Things are tough all over. Planning on spending $28M annually to inspect and wash boats atlandings is a complete waste of money. The fact that the DNR is thinking this would be a worthwhile use of funds – makes me think that the layoff and wage cut is a better idea.

Important to look at all sides of issues.

Dog

---

And these can begin with Cornicelli.

Quote:

---

Paycuts and layoffs are also an option.

Things are tough all over. Planning on spending $28M annually to inspect and wash boats atlandings is a complete waste of money. The fact that the DNR is thinking this would be a worthwhile use of funds – makes me think that the layoff and wage cut is a better idea.

Important to look at all sides of issues.

Dog

---

This was my exact thought!

I was for this increase but am not so sure now. Am still waiting to see if there’ll be any aopology from that conservation officer in the boat who sliced a bridge fisherman’s line last week at the governor’s news conference. Oh, I guess those shore guys don’t have to buy licences, eh? Shoulda been there guys…all those expensive black pinstripe suits and deep winter tans…and a big blue semi going across the Stillwater liftbridge in the background with “TIME FOR A BEER BREAK” in white letters on the side.

Few believe increased license revenues will be earmarked to areas that truly need help. Will we preserve our hunting and fishing or preserve jobs within the DNR?? Can anyone please remind me of findings from the $$ earmarked for our natural resources from the State lottery? Was that money going where we thought???

Here is some of my concern. This is THE precise conversation that took place several months back with a man in a certain position of power and myself (Average Joe Deer Hunter).

Me “I have some concerns about the wolf pack here in Northern Minnesota. I don’t hate wolves sir and honestly enjoy viewing them from my front door. Still I believe from what I’ve observed with my own eyes that we’ve got a Predator vs. Prey in-balance. (I then cite several examples of what I’ve encountered over my last 27 years of hunting a particular borderland zone.) Considering your position I’d like your opinion on this matter.”

Response ; “I have NO opinion” Me ” That’s interesting……how can you have NO opinion on the states #1 predator considering your position in managing our big game within the state? His response ; “Your the #1 Predator”

Clever indeed . Do I believe the $$ generated from increased license fees will be wisely spent to protect our resources by a team of men and women prov-en they’ll fight for both our fish and wildlife?? ME “I have NO opinion” WOW that IS an easy response!!………NEXT!!

Chris Granrud, I’m guessing you didn’t know that the license fee bill also directs the DNR to establish the 2012 wolf hunting season in MN?

I strongly agree the the DNR is far from perfect. But I want the DNR to do more of the good research, resource development, and enforcement work that it does, not less.

I never thought I’d come out in support of funding government, but if the DNR makes big cuts the good hunting and fishing work they do will get cut along with everything else.

The above mentioned issues of the approval of boat washing stations amidst a budget shortfall is a perfect example of EXACTLY why I oppose a license fee increase. Our DNR (and gov’t in general) CAN NOT be trusted to do as they say they will do(or be responsible with the money they already have)…. At the top echelon, the organization is an embarassing bunch of incompetent boobs.

“I have no opinion…..” Wow (but not a surprising response…..)…idiots.

T

Quote:

---

Chris Granrud, I’m guessing you didn’t know that the license fee bill also directs the DNR to establish the 2012 wolf hunting season in MN?

I strongly agree the the DNR is far from perfect. But I want the DNR to do more of the good research, resource development, and enforcement work that it does, not less.

I never thought I’d come out in support of funding government, but if the DNR makes big cuts the good hunting and fishing work they do will get cut along with everything else.

---

Your guess would be incorrect. I know we’ll be pitched for $$ to now solve a wolf sprawl!! Predicted it 10 years ago. Should we then assume without the increase in license fees we’ll sit on our hands and let the wolves further decimate the deer herd in Northern Minnesota? This will continue to erode license sales in the wolf range. Let license fees continue to slip as state hunters continue to become disgruntled over mis-management? Some might point by turning a blind eye on a federal level concerning wolves; We now have created a money pit in the states arena…. to solve a predator “problem”. This CERTAINLY calls for further funding to solve right?? Seem strange to anyone?? Many sportsman believe Reactive management is not only a waste of limited license revenues, but simply expensive styles of managing a business let alone a valuable resource. We’ll have to wait and see the dollar figure that is required to now solve this crisis. For some odd reason I’d hope the managing of wolves if done correctly should turn a profit instead of ugly red ink?? Keep in mind it was only months ago some arrogantly spoke that there was NO issue. In fact state leaders currently STILL in charge had NO OPINION?? Again that was only MONTHS ago. Excuse me for being a bit skeptical on how my $$ will be spent to solve something that isn’t a problem.

Some may relate managing a resource with license fees as a business. Simple business principles pertaining to managing a resource will raise a few questions from some. Some will simply blindly throw out money and hope it works. Here is a common thought by MANY. Don’t let a predator get out of control to begin with by A; FUNDING A RECOVERY……..YEP YOU AND I PUT OUR MONEY IN THE HAT!! Then we are now asked to FUND a Draw Down because we had ZERO Pack size goals to attain and no Exit plan. POOR POOR MANAGMENT AND COSTLY!! Plain a simply terrible use of limited revenues.

Case #2 Allowing hunters to harvest 5 deer and handing out deer tags in certain zones like CANDY then coming back and preaching about how we were drawing down the herd because that is what the state wanted?? Boy I must be disconnected on the phoilosophy here or crazy good as seeing through political smoke. I do however know that by selling 5 tags to one guy you can line the pockets nicely in the general fund of the DNR presumably at the expense of the states deer herd??? Now hunters are qouted as to being upset because deer numbers are down. DNR can’t possibly sell us on a continued harvest of 5 deer a man in some zones, so YEP TOTAL license sales will fall. So now what?? YOU guessed it…….Our fisheries and wildlife needs our help right?? License fee increases!! YEAH!!

BTW I support license fee increases. I do not support the way I fear Minnesota sportsmans hard earned money might be managed.

Here is something to chew on though; Problems now brought to light are nice selling points for needed solutions………$$. Wolves are a hot button!!

My final thought; Windy conditions can indeed hinder opening weekend harvest numbers, but many will argue it wasn’t windy enough to erase tracks and sign.

If a hunters harvests 1 deer and sees 2 deer it is recorded by the DNR for statistical purposes precisely the same as harvesting 1 deer and seeing 500!! ANYONE see an issue here? The problem in some areas is truly being minimized, and still pointing to an issue needing help.

Again I’m sorry for being a bit frustrated, but IMHO when the man in position of power is asked a question regarding management by the “Common Man” and turns out to be “SPOT ON” don’t turn up your nose. This is not very becoming of you. That common man is where the $$ comes from you get to manage. Maybe JUST MAYBE the average joe is right every once in awhile, and might have placed the good of a resource above being politically correct in the name of keeping a beautiful office space.

Right on Chris

Chris you get my vote.

Did you take a breath during any of that?

John,

I KNOW you are looking at the positive side of how increased funding can help our resources. I not only commend your thought process on this, but happen to agree in principle 100%. Many including myself simply need convincing we have management in place that puts the future of both our wildlife and fisheries in front of personal agenda. Guys willing to step up to the plate even when it isn’t popular to do so. The above mentioned examples are just a few examples that may lead to sportsman questioning further funding to the current governing body. Our resources need a leader. So many sportsman are dependant upon this.

I’ll leave this conversation with this thought. Fishing and hunting are big tourist draws to Minnesota. Some may argue fishing alone is the #1 tourist draw to Northern Minnesota. It supports so many business ventures and of course guys like myself as a simple fishing guide. There is NO question in my mind both preserving and enhancing our resources are a high priority for many including myself. Convincing the funding parties that this is precisely what will happen with further funding will be a bit of a challenge due to past history.

Quote:

---

Did you take a breath during any of that?

---

LOL!! For some reason hunting and fishing gets me excited!! I want guys managing our resources to fight for our fish and game with the same passion we enjoy our chosen sport with! I know……Asking too much probably!!

First, I think I’m actually on Chris’s side when it comes to wolves even through I don’t live or hunt around them.

With that, how will starving the DNR for dollars help the wolf issue? How many wolf lovers are out there opposing the fee increase, because they DON’T want a wolf season?

Also, would we want to starve the stocking and enforcement programs until deer hunters get their way on the wolf thing?

Chris,

I noted in your repsonse that you support the fee increases. If that’s the case, let’s work together to get the DNR the financial resources it needs AND work together to make sure they do a good job.

Quote:

---

Chris,

I noted in your repsonse that you support the fee increases. If that’s the case, let’s work together to get the DNR the financial resources it needs AND work together to make sure they do a good job.

---

I’d support a good strategic plan which would need to be followed while being audited by an independant party on an annual basis. Seems logical? If so let’s see a plan and not simply request a bail out. Many have sour feelings towards bail outs of sorts without being held accountable to an end goal. We give $$ and have some say what it is spent on. BTW….There is no stocking on Rainy lake. Can my $$ stock Rainy? LOL!! JK

As for the Wolf debacle. It was simply crazy $$ invested, wasted, invested and wasted. Years ago of course they were decimated BECAUSE…….Wait for it; Man wanted big game to flourish and the Wolf hindered achieving population goals. Canada is spot on on this one. So….We dumped $$ into decimating the wolf. THEN…..WE want wolves back. A re-introduction……..WAS FUNDED AGAIN!! Now my biggest beef; Though we’ve been around this circle again with a terrible incomplete managment plan. I ask of you John. Can you possibly blame anyone for scoffing at even the mention of now needing $$ to control the wolf sprawl? It was TERRIBLE TERRIBLE management that has decimated a deer herd in the range and now going to cost $$ to control. Lobbying for $$ on this front will get great opposition I fear.

So again the DNR needs to draft a plan “BUSINESS SMART” mind you.

Forget the lottery money, what about the new tax legacy fund for the environment?

I am starting to think our politicians are being less than honest with us.

i use to be one of the DNR’s biggest supporters. then i started getting more involved (going to numerous public meeting) my trust for the DNR has slowly eroded away.

now in the DNR’s defence the polititions have become to involved in running the DNR but thats not the whole problem.
heres my fear of an increase, the polititions will see this as more revenue for the DNR and cut there funding even more.

i’ve contacted my representative many times on this matter and told him i don’t like the idea of paying more for less.

every year i purches
family sportsman liscense (hunting and fishing for me fishing for wife)
state pheasant stamp
state duck stamp
federal duck stamp
state trout stamp
turkey liscense
deer liscense
now i haven’t hunted ducks, pheasants, or fished trout in MN for about 10 years but i continued to purches all this stuff thinking it was for a good cause.
but after some of my conversations politicions and heads of the DNR i have yet found anyone who will talk HONOSTLY with me.
i will no longer purches all the stuff i don’t need.
i will only buy a fishing and turkey liscense and continue to take my hunting dollars out of state as i have been doing for the last 12 years.

now this is just me and i know we all feel differantly on this issue and if some of you want to jump my and tell me i need to do my part thats fine but i feel i’ve been doing my part and things are not getting any better.

Annual independent audits could be great, but they’d definitely be very expensive. Sounds like a scheme to grow the government to me, Chris!

The DNR says they lost $2.2 million in license sales during the 20 day gov’t shutdown last year. This piece is clearly the state government’s fault, even if the DNR was only an indirect victim of the shutdown.

The second piece is that the state budget forecasters estimate that license sales will be $1.1 million less than previously forecasted. I’d guess that this is a result of the recession.

The last piece is that the revenue to the DNR from two federal programs is forecasted to be down by $4.3 million. The two federal programs are funded primarily by excise taxes charged on firearms and ammunition ( Pittman-Robertson Act, in place since 1937 ) and sportfishing equipment ( Dingell-Johnson Act, in place since 1950 ). I’d guess that this is also a result of the recession.

The DNR’s funding has been going down simply due to inflation since 2001, which is the last time license fees were raised, and that’s to be expected. The primary drivers of the urgent funding issues are partisan, no-compromise politics (the shutdown) and the economy (decreasing revenue).

Most of this info is available on the DNR’s website, or with a quick google search. I hope this helps people understand the issue a little better.

Accountability as to where tax payers money is spent seems prudent in today’s world. I’m not sure you’ll convince many otherwise. A bank bailout your aware of placed huge sums of taxpayer money in the pockets of the banking industry. Now most would agree credit our nation depends upon is nearly impossible to attain without proving you don’t need it. Still we’ve willingly mortaged our future for the good of the banking industry most are unable to utilize. Few will agree that bailouts of any sort don’t need further restrictions and well thought out planning. On a smaller scale the “Average Joe Taxpayer” is warranted in thinking we have some sketchy history concerning the earmarking of Legacy funds and LOTTER proceeds?? Remember those?? Where is THAT taxpayer money being spent currently or shouldn’t we ask?? So many including myself would like to know in further detail where and how the increased revenues will be spent. Running a budget is real life for most individuals within the state, so why shouldn’t our governing bodies be held accountable??

Here is something that would interest me. Increased revenues to some extent get spent in MY backyard. personally I benefit from MY increased contributions? You can sell me on that!! Heck I’ll donate far more than a small license fee increase.

Last year during the state shutdown many resort owners and fishing guides such as myself pleaded for the Minnesota DNR to publicly state to our of state guests that we will NOT ticket those for fishing without a license. We warned leaders that this will be very very costly to us on a personal level in an already tough tourist economy. I again called and talked to state leaders with again less than desirable results. These phone calls and letters clearly fell upon deaf ears ONCE AGAIN. This cost the DNR millions………YES SIR!! This also cost our private business owners the same or more!! Any bailouts heading our way?? The DNR concerned about themselves had very little concern for resort cancellations and guide trips cancelled. Who cares that all those mom and pop shops making a summer living will not be as busy, gas stations, restaurants…. I’m not sure many have forgot about this, but I assure you nobody up here has. Our marketing department within the DNR……..is simply WOWSER BAD. Here is a thought; You actually use a poor situation your put in by some inept state leaders and use it to PROMOTE FISHING in the state of Minnesota! Come fish for free guys……..We’re on a BREAK!! Yep we had visitors begging to put a check down at local bait shops in a sort of IOU for a fishing license we couldn’t sell them!! NOT GOOD ENOUGH we were told! UNREAL STUPIDITY!! They spent their family vacation elsewhere costing the private sector of minnesota MILLIONS AS WELL. No they did NOT write tickets that I am aware of, but the fear of fishing without proper licensing was a sufficient enough fear factor to cost many tourism based operations large sums of money in a depressed economy statewide. NOW come back to the state and plead your case as to needing support?? Bold……..Foolish?? BTW that oversight cost my guide service a traceable $1500.00 in lost revenue. There is no tracking the possibility a couple additional vacant guide dates wouldn’t have been filled last minute by out of state tourists? As a fishing guide last minute trips are very common as bites get hot. Planning in advance is clearly not always possible. Of that $1500.00 that they cost ME… it would seem tough with a straight face to ask for more $$. BTW the resort lost around $1500.00 as well…..THIS IS ONE example of way way to many.

Furthermore… as per license sales declining. Mis-managment of a resource can lessen the quality of an experience and this will lessen public interest. Have you BY CHANCE heard the large percentage of hunting parties in Northern Minnesota that saw NO deer for 10 guys? Much of those guys are going to be less willing to head back. Not everyone is a die hard sportsman like some of us. I strongly disagree that the fee of a license alone is what is keeping people from purchasing a license. Seeing no deer and having an increased multitude of fisheries with stunted fish on the otherhand may have guys on the fence playing golf or bowling instead.

Again managment of a resource is CRITICAL!! Too many have concerns with our current ability to do so.

Minnesota’s DNR needs two positions to stand out. Marketing a resource and mending public relations. This money would be WELL spent.

Quote:

---

Forget the lottery money, what about the new tax legacy fund for the environment?

I am starting to think our politicians are being less than honest with us.

---

Can always count on you Dave, for a chuckle

Got a problem…? Maybe we should throw more money at it ????

I agree with you once again, Chris. Few things get under my skin more than unnecessary bureaucracy.

The DNR doesn’t get a full review every year beyond its financials, but MN does have the Office of the Legislative Auditor which gives objective reports to the Legislature every year. In my experience, they do a darn good job. You probably won’t find what you’re looking for, but here’s a link to their reports in any case: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/fad/fadsubj.htm

Wow, I’m really disappointed in the responses here. I see a lot of folks ignorant or misinformed on some game and fish funding facts.

* To the complainers about the DNR’s AIS policy- first of all, it’s legislated, second and most importantly, its coming from boat registrations. A tiny fraction of your fishing license goes towards any AIS work.

* You want the toughest job in the world after president? Try regulating Minnesota’s sacred white-tailed deer. I guess if you don’t like the deer management in your area it’s grounds for not supporting broader fish and wildlife initiatives including this funding increase. Even a personal shot at the former big game coordinator. Lou Cornicelli worked pretty hard to collect a bunch of public input before Zone 3 APRs went into effect. Nobody ever said it couldn’t be changed back.

*Granrud, you were talking about wolf management with a DNR official several months ago before they came off federal protection! What did you want him or her to say? Their hands were tied. Everybody loves to jump on the DNR about wolves and the state has had a wolf management plan in place for years including hunting, all they needed was federal protection to drop and it didn’t happen. So they got to take the heat when it was a federal issue. Same thing happens to DNR Fisheries with cormorants.
Furthermore Chris, you wanted the conservation officers to selectively enforce laws during the shutdown…you don’t think that would open the state to a lawsuit?

* Legacy money is expressly prohibited from being used to fund the DNR. Look it up.

* Audits are done every year and are mandated. It’s called the Minnesota Game and Fish Budgetary Oversight Committee. Google it.

I’m sorry if I’m coming off harsh here but I just can’t believe nobody is going to stick up for the DNR here. I see a bunch of people complaining about their pet issues. Let’s cut off our nose to spit our faces here guys.

Gentlemen, we must all hang together or we shall most assuredly all hang separately. If we don’t support the DNR they are at a point of not being able to collect information to satisfactorily manage the resource, their ability to provide recreational opportunities is compromised, and at a tangible level, your hunting and fishing opportunities will be less.

Let’s take this down to Garage Logic. You’re going to spend $4 bucks a gallon on boat gas this summer, a scoop of fatheads will cost ya $3, a cold one at the tavern on the way home is $4. Will $5 more, to maintain resources in a coveted outdoors recreation destination state, to go fishing 365 days a year break ya?

No offense, but the “it’s just a few dollars more” attitude of our leaders have me paying close to half my income on taxes, fee’s, permits, etc.

Audits or not, I’m not so sure there’s a lot of financial responsibility in govt much less the DNR.

My favorite is the stocking of lakes that freeze out at a regular rate, doesn’t make sense to me.

I fault the leaders here, not the workers btw.

I have my doubts about how the invasive species problem is being handled also, but I admit other than working on a cure, I don’t have the answers for that, but I doubt the DNR does either, but they seem willing to want to throw money at it.

Al

da_chise31: The annual audits the DNR undergoes are financial, not performance-based as Chris Granrud described. Also, Granrud said that he supports the fee increases. Sure, I wish he’d encourage others to do the same, but the guy is pissed about the wolf thing … so what more can you ask?!?

Everything you said is accurate based on my understanding of the issues. That said, I think you’re taking a counter-productive approach. All you can do is ask people to consider the big picture, then hope that they will.

Here’s a link to the DNR’s 2011 Game and Fish Fund Report

Quote:

---

My favorite is the stocking of lakes that freeze out at a regular rate, doesn’t make sense to me.

---

I can assure you with great certainty that DNR COs, Biologists and Managers are not the ones pushing for stocking. If you want to blame people for stocking lakes that have winter kill, it is your fellow fishermen, associations and groups that are making sure the DNR stocks these lakes.

You can look at the DNR from top to bottom and have a disdain for them, but the fact is these people are hamstrung in many ways from offering an opinion on regulations and policies, even in a one on one setting. They are very much controlled by the legislature and the public at large.

I had the same post typed out Pug, but deleted it knowing it’s a waste of time.

Quote:

---

You can look at the DNR from top to bottom and have a disdain for them, but the fact is these people are hamstrung in many ways from offering an opinion on regulations and policies, even in a one on one setting. They are very much controlled by the legislature and the public at large.

---

As a wise man once said. No matter what they do, they are never going to make everyone happy.