MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources and sportsmen's groups are planning a new push to get the Legislature to raise hunting and fishing license fees, alarmed that a key fund is headed for insolvency sooner than expected.
The Game and Fish Fund, which supports programs important to hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans, is due to go into the red in mid-2013. That's about a year earlier than expected when DNR officials first proposed higher license fees a year ago.
The fees haven't changed since 2001.
"Let us pay more. We're volunteering," said Mark Johnson, executive director of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association.
Ed Boggess, the DNR's fish and wildlife division director, said revenue will be down $7.6 million from what was forecast a year ago for three reasons. The state government shutdown cost the DNR about $2.2 million in lost fishing and hunting license sales, ongoing revenue from hunting and fishing license sales is projected at $1.1 million less than before, and the state's share of projected revenues from federal excise taxes on tackle and other items is down $4.3 million.
The DNR proposed a long list of fee increases last year, including a rise from $17 to $24 for a one-year resident individual adult fishing license and from $24 to $40 for a married couple. An individual deer license would have gone from $26 to $30. An annual angling license for a nonresident adult would have gone from $39.50 to $44 and a nonresident deer license would have gone from $140 to $160. The DNR's proposal this year is expected to be about the same.
Boggess said it's urgent that lawmakers act this year so that any fee increases will be in place for 2013 licenses. DNR officials hope to give lawmakers a list early in the session, which opens Jan. 24, of cuts that would have to be made if fees aren't raised.
"There will be very deep cuts to fisheries and wildlife programs and staffing and offices," Boggess said.
The Legislature didn't act on the proposal last year in a session marked by gridlock over taxes and spending between a GOP-controlled House and Senate and a Democratic governor. The House Republican Caucus, in particular, was strongly opposed to any tax increases, even when packaged as user fees paid by the people who directly benefit.
Supporters said they think this year will be different since the state isn't staring down a huge budget deficit.
"The support is there from the hunting and fishing community," said Gary Botzek, executive director of the Minnesota Conservation Federation. "Whether the support is there from the legislative community remains to be seen."
Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria, who chairs the Senate's environmental committee, said he'll support higher fees but expects it to be one of the toughest issues his committee tackles this session.
"I think it has a much better chance this year because they're user fees, not taxes," Ingebrigtsen said. "If you don't hunt and fish in the state of Minnesota you don't have to pay for it."
The chairman of the corresponding House panel, Rep. Denny McNamara, R-Hastings, said he generally agrees that higher license fees are needed, but he expects Republicans to come up with a proposal that might not be as extensive as the DNR's.
Phil Krinkie, president of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, which strongly opposes most tax increases, said he wouldn't necessarily oppose higher game and fish license fees although he'd want to look at the costs of operating the programs they support. He said there's "always an area of gray" on whether something is a tax or a fee, and he expects the fees to be a hot topic this session.
A study commissioned by the DNR last year found that its annual individual resident and nonresident fishing licenses were low compared to fees charged throughout the United States." The state's other fishing license fees were about average.
Minnesota's deer license fee was low compared to other states, while other game licenses a bit higher and in line with nearby states.
A DNR presentation based on that study said Minnesota's fees would be in the middle of the pack even with the proposed increases.
Vern Wagner, vice president of Anglers for Habitat, said $25 for a fishing license would still be a bargain compared with other forms of entertainment such as taking your kids to a movie and buying them popcorn.
Wagner also pointed out that the DNR already has absorbed substantial cuts in recent years. Many positions have been eliminated, fewer studies are being done and there's less money for stocking lakes, he said. And all of that strikes at the heart of the state's identity, he said.
According to the DNR, around 2 million Minnesotans fish and around 700,000 hunt, generating $3.6 billion in annual economic activity and supporting 55,000 jobs.
"Fishing is synonymous with Minnesota. Or maybe it's the other way around," Wager said with a laugh. "Minnesota is synonymous with fishing."
___
Online:
Department of Natural Resources background on license fees, with links to detail proposed changes: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/heritage/index.html
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.



Comments (15)
Add commentRidiculous
Raising fees during hard economic times makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe the DNR needs to tighten its belt and make do with what it has, just like the rest of us do. Maybe the DNR needs to learn to live within its means and not look at taxpayers and citizens as an unlimited source of money.
Maybe the DNR needs to look at where they can cut expenses, just like the rest of us. There is not an infinite well of money out there for government agencise to contiually draw from.
It says they lost 2.2 million
It says they lost 2.2 million dureing the shut down not our FAULT. Maybe the dnr should charge nonresidents what it would cost a Minnesotan to fish/hunt in there state Cmon dont put it on us because are so called leaders cant do there job right. I bet they took the money and spent it on something else like invasives and the new roadside checks were getting this summer and them new wash stations what them cost again. [filtered word] you people need to get your stuff together and make do with what you got. Legislature folks can start digging in there own pockets.
It says they lost 2.2 million
It says they lost 2.2 million dureing the shut down not our FAULT. Maybe the dnr should charge nonresidents what it would cost a Minnesotan to fish/hunt in there state Cmon dont put it on us because are so called leaders cant do there job right. I bet they took the money and spent it on something else like invasives and the new roadside checks were getting this summer and them new wash stations what them cost again. [filtered word] you people need to get your stuff together and make do with what you got. Legislature folks can start digging in there own pockets.
Minnesota , Just Another Cold Nebraska
Phil Krinkie is certainly not an expert on the Natural Resources of the State of MN, why a political pawn of the GOP would even comment is beyond me The MN GOP party is bankrupt -financially ...a .user fee is certainly NOT A TAX ,our FORMER Gov Timmy Pawlenty taught us all that lesson. However property taxes are a tax Phil. We all need the DNR & the PCA to keep our resources for our Grand Kids to enjoy ,that sound like something you heard before/??????.
It's funny
how everyone whines about a little increase in fees and yet I wonder how many of these same people voted for the school levy. And Vern isn't an expert either, but I see you turned this into politics only. What part of loss revenue do you not understand? Personally I hope they double all the fees!
I was ridiculed when I said the state shutdown was going to cost
I was ridiculed when I said the state shutdown was going to cost the state lots. Cant remember who it was, but I said it was going to cost the state a million or more over the shutdown in license fees over the 4th holiday and i was called an idiot.
$2.2 million is over a million.
The state continues to over regulate, make it more expensive for people to fish, and then they wonder why fishing is dying as an industry in this state.
User fees...
I agree with that. Then those who use the resources (hunting/fishing guides) to supplement their income or rely entirely on the income as a lively hood face the largest increase.
lottery?
Doesnt the Mn lottery support this and since they are doubling their fees, wouldnt that reflect in an increase to this fund also?
DNR...
Is this the same department that takes tax payers money and stocks walleye in Milacs Lake and Red Lake just to let "Commercial/Tribal" Fishing happen..... who don't pay tax dollars what so ever??
What does DNR mean
In regard to someone suggeting the fees should be doubled. Well, whther your aware of it or not or care or not, fact is there are a lot of people who do live on very very tight budgets and every dollar is important. A lot of people can't afford to go on out of town vacations or go to nice resorts. Yet they can go to the local river or lake with thier kids and enjoy fishing from the shore or bank. Not everyone has a lot of extra money. So an extra few dollars might not mean a thing to some people, but it all adds up, and at some point people will stop fishing and hunting because of the expense. I can afford an increase, but I really feel for those that are barely getting bye.
Hmmm, I have a thought, maybe the DNR could base fees on income. Bring in last years tax return and your hunting and fishing license fee is pro-rated based on your ability to pay !!!
Many many years ago my mother reported seeing cougars near Pine River. Standing in middle of the road, 50 feet in front of her, during the daytime on, 2 different occasions. She called the DNR and of course they told her she was mistaken, no such critter in Minnesota back then. Hmmm, she was very well aware it was no Bobcat or Lynx. She never drank, was highly educated, very knowledgalbe about wildlife, and yet DNR said she was very wrong. I guess there was reason I was told what the term DRN means when I moved to Minnesota 31 years ago. Nothing has changed it seems.
Pdnet15 do you fish or hunt?
Pdnet15 do you fish or hunt? money does come form the state lottery. Milacs i would feel to bad about that one atleast we can fish it. As far as red id like to see them fish else were what is red 244,000 acres and we dont get to fish even half something wrong there. The people voted in dont do there jobs there more worryed about personal agendas and filling there pockets period!! and it dont matter if there dem. or rep. there all the same. What happen to that big money they found were that go dont here anything about it.
muskyb
To answer your question, yes. I also write coherent sentences and don't babble.
DNR employees are funded through the general fund
The fish management and stocking is not funded through the general fund, but all those DNR employees are. They could care less if there is or is not any fish license sales.
The stocking and management comes through license, lotto, fed taxes of fishing gear and a few other things minor additions.
Couldn't be more wroing, "disagree with dem's"
I don't have a clue where you get your information from but it could not be more wrong. The people who manage fish and game in the DNR get very little general fund money. The vast majority of their salary AND the work they do--including fish stocking--is funded by license fees and $$ from the Pittman Robertson fund (the federal excise tax on sporting arms and ammo) and the Dingell Johnson fund (same thing for fishing). General fund revenue is just a few % of their total funding pie. Used to be more, but legislators have been cutting that back over the years.
They also get very little of the new sales tax outdoor heritage fund. They get a little of the lottery proceeds but that too is dwarfed by the federal excise tax funds and license sale revenue.
Agree w/ Musky...
About non-resident fees. Our non-resident license fees, particularly fishing, are obscenely low compared to other states.