Got a response from elected official regarding license increases

[cat_man]

I recently sent an email to a dozen or so members of the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environmental Standing Committee (in the Utah Legislature) regarding the proposed increases for hunting and fishing licenses in 2007.

Here is the response email from Rep. Michael E. Noel, Vice Chairman of that committee:

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your recent email and for your interest in issues
relating to wildlife resources in Utah. As you may or may not know, I serve as
the Vice Chairman of the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environmental
Standing Committee and as a member of the joint appropriations committee that
oversees the budget for the Division of Wildlife Resources. I am aware of the
proposed fee increases and will do my best to vote these down in committee. I
do believe that the Division of Wildlife Resources needs an appropriation from
the general funds as opposed to going to the hunter and fisherman for all of
their budget needs. As a life long hunter and sportsman, I want you to know
that I will do all in my power to keep the costs of licenses for harvesting our
game species at an affordable price to all the citizens of Utah. Thank you
again for your input into this important matter.

Thank you,

Representative Noel


> Rep. Michael E. Noel-
>
> As you have probably heard, the Division of Wildlife Resources is proposing
> to raise the cost of licenses in 2007 to cover a budget shortfall. It is a
> state when the DWR only gets 8% of its funding from the general fund, and
> being forced to make up the rest entirely from the sale of hunting and
> fishing licenses, which is unlike nearly every other agency in the state. The
> DWR benefits far more individuals than just us hunters and fishermen. They
> help to enforce the laws. The DWR helps prevent species in Utah from
> becoming listed in the Federal Endangered and Threatened Species List, which
> helps keep control of Utah's resources here in Utah. This has economic
> advantages to Utah as well. Much of Utah's tourism is influenced by it's
> wild lands and its wildlife, and to only dedicate 8% of the DWR's budget from
> the General Fund is selling every Utah citizen short. In a time when the
> numbers of license holders in Utah is decreasing, an increase in fees is not
> the answer to the budget problems for the DWR, and could just widen the gap
> in the future. As a concerned citizen and sportsman, I urge you to make sure
> that the percentage of the DWR budget be increased to a reasonable level,
> instead of increasing fees that will only cause more burden to be placed on a
> select few individuals.
>
> Thank you for your time.
[signature]

[BigBuck3333]

that 8 percent was the thing i was trying to point out a wek ago when some one took it persoaly when i called the state blood suckers. great report see what i mean about where all the money goes to general fund lurechuker.
[signature]

[fsh4fun05]

I imagine most of you fish quite often. I know I do, ask my wife. I paid $26.00 for my license, I figure that's about 50 cents a trip give or take. With the new license being good for one year no matter when you buy it, what do you expect, they got to make their money somewhere. I would'nt mind paying a little extra for a license as long as they dont raise the state park pass or entry fees.
[signature]

[chickenlicken]

A little here...a little there... Come on, the state has a billion? dollar surplus this year what gives?
[signature]

[Ryno]

I concur. It seems like $30-40 a year in license fees is small potatoes when you look at trucks, boats, ATVs, campers, hunting/fishing equipment, gas, and the of course the overall price of a "kitchen pass"!
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

While I do agree that the DWR should get a share of the proceeds from the states current budget surplus, I do have some concerns about a shift of DWR dependence for funding from fishing and hunting licenses to the general fund. The main concern is that of control. As long as most of the DWR's money is derived from license fees, the DWR administration has a major say in how it is spent. While there will always be disagreement on the details, I do believe the division DOES have the best interests of sportsmen in mind, in their policies. This control is something that some state politicians have recently been complaining about. If most ,or a larger proportion, of the budget starts coming from the general fund, then the CONTROL also shifts to the legislature. Do you want liberal congressmen, dependent on PETA campaign donations, or rural arch conservatives, who want a lawless free-for-all on our wildlife, exerting major control on the DWR? I don't. I guess I would rather pay a little more for a fishing license if it means that my interests as a sportsman are protected. Remember, this is the same "Natural Resources subcommitee" (with most of the same legislators) that decided last year that there was too much law enforcement at our State Parks and axed the funding for 5 State Park rangers. Think about that the next time a Water ski boat cuts your trolling lines. Anyway, a little junk food for thought.
Tight lines.
[signature]

[cat_man]

You make some valid points. I still think that the DWR can retain control over their spending if let's say, 15% of their funding comes from the general fund and the rest from license fees. That's still 85% self-funded. But it would more than make up for the current shortfall. I'm not against raising license fees a couple dollars every few years, as long as the state is also asked to increase its contribution as well.
[signature]

[Elkoholic]

I for one disagree with the price hikes whether it be $1 or $50. Take a look around at the surrounding states prices and you'll see that Utah has the highest resident (and non-resident) prices in the west. As for the Hunters our seasons are shorter and the success rates are lower. How is it that the surrounding states can manage to get better game management and cheaper license fees for thier residents? They get more money from the state! Our state needs to look at some of these states and adopt some of their policies.
[signature]

[redlight88]

Regarding the cost of resident hunting licenses in other states. Utah made a decision back in 1994, when it went to the deer hunt cap, to allow only 10 percent of all available permits to nonresidents. Colorado, on the other hand, allows 60 percent of its tags to go to nonresidents. Do the math. Nonresident vs. resident fees. Colorado DWR has a budget of $110 million, Utah's is $57. Allow more nonresidents and the price of a resident tag could drop, but Utah doesn't want other people spending money to hunt here....
[signature]

[PrinceFisher]

Hey Kevin,

I appreciate the time you've taken to write our representatives and spark more discussion on this issue. I for one don't mind if fees are raised slightly, but in some cases the DWR plans to raise some fees by as much as 100 percent.

I do have one question for you, however. Are you sure that the number of people applying for Utah licenses and tags is decreasing each year, as you stated? I thought I read/heard somewhere that the number of persons applying for limited entry-type hunting tags actually increases each year.

Please let us know where you acquired your data/findings.
[signature]

[cat_man]

The remark was about fishing licenses, sorry. The number of people buying fishing licenses each year is in decline. I totally agree with you that limited entry tags are in higher demand every year (including wild turkey which is becoming very popular as well).
[signature]

[One_eyed_jack]

The other part is that being a non resident hunter in neighboring states is almost the same price for a good hunt as a resident here. Unless you are lucky and always drawing out here it is more adventageous to go north, east or west for the same if not better quality hunt.

I would also like to see that a portion of sales tax on sporting goods of all types go back to the DNR for better management of our resources. This would bennefit all who use the outdoors. As for the increase, all we can do is be a squeaky wheel and tell our great officials what we think about their decisions.
[signature]

[lurechucker]

[reply]
Do you want liberal congressmen, dependent on PETA campaign donations, or rural arch conservatives, who want a lawless free-for-all on our wildlife, exerting major control on the DWR?
[/reply]
I think this is absolutely a valid point, and one that has finally put me over the edge to support the proposed increase in fees. I would say the latter (rural conservatives) is the major concern where the Natural Resources and Ag. Committee is concerned. Many of them have a love-hate relationship with the DWR, some a hate relationship. If they feel they have justification to stick their hand in DWR matters--don't kid yourself--they'll take it.

Now I'm not saying they're all bad; not at all. But their perspective is skewed towards their own interests, and the interests of those whispers in their ears. Keeping funding tied to fees means the decisions are made by bioligists and other experienced officials, and they have to respond to the source of those fees: us!

It's like health care. Do you want an HMO bean-counter deciding what medicine you should take, or do you want a doctor making the call?

I favor the increased fees--this time. I favor some funding from the General Fund, as I pay taxes and I'd like to feel like it's going somewhere useful. I also favor the DWR not putting itself in this situation altogether in the future. Fishing license sales are down, and they need to figure out why. Is it that fisheries are less alluring? More people are going out of state to fish? Is it a law enforcement issue? (People still fish but don't buy a license because they just plain aren't getting checked?) And what about hunting license fees? Are we drawing in enough people from out of state? Too many?

I don't have the answers to avoid this situation in the future, but I think these are some of the right questions. The hot issue now is the fee increase, but the REAL issue is what's prompting it.


lurechucker
[signature]

[fsh4fun05]

I believe license sales could go up from here. I know people that like to fish but dont want to spend the money for a full year license that ends in Dec. That has changed now. More people will buy full licenses which equals more revenue. Therefore the funding may remain the same. Why fix something now when we can wait for the whole dam* thing to collapse?
[signature]

[cat_man]

I got a response from another representative (Brad Johnson):

Dear Friend,

First of all let me thank you for taking the time to write and for expressing your concern for the proposed increases in hunting/fishing license fees. I have received hundreds and hundreds of email messages from concerned sportsman, such as yourself, sharing their dismay at the possible fee increase. I myself have enjoyed hunting and fishing for many years and I too am concerned that fees may be raised on permits and licenses.

I am opposed to such an action because it will discourage the younger generations from becoming involved in traditions such as, hunting and fishing, which have been enjoyed by Utahns for many years.

I will do everything I can to see that this increase in fees does not happen. Thank you again for your concern. If you have any other questions or concerns feel free to contact me.

Respectfully Yours,

Representative Brad Johnson
District 70
[signature]

[Elkoholic]

Yeah, I got the same response from him today also.
[signature]

[L.E.Tist]

I'm for any increase in license fees that keeps the DWR autonomous from our screwball legislature.

Any increase.
[signature]

[gshorthair]

Reading through all the concerns about increases a couple of items to think about. First the last time I checked the fees for licenses went into the general fund and we all hope the lawmakers will be kind enough to put it in the dwr's budget where it should of gone in the first place. They already have control of the license revenues. The second is the budget for dwr is totally seperate from the state parks. If they want to raise launching fees that is a completely seperate issue. I wish every time I went out to willard and paid to launch my little 14 foot fishing boat at least a dollar would back into the states fisheries program. It doesn't work that way but without the fish I wouldn't have any reason to pay to launch my boat. The last thing is the dwr is trying to start a walk in acess program that will take money from the dwr's budget. When They can't maintain the programs they have now I'm not sure they should try to start something new. I know this new program is one of the reasons for the new increase. Just a few more things to think about. gshorthair
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

From the DWR website;

Restricted funds: The majority of DWR's revenue is generated from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and permits. These funds are restricted for exclusive use by DWR and cannot be transferred to other state agencies. One hundred percent of the license dollars collected stay within the DWR to carry out the division's mission to conserve and protect the Wildlife of Utah. Funding overages or shortages are managed through an interest-bearing account maintained by the State Treasurer. Other types of funding in this category are revenues from Certificates of Registration, donations, wildlife license plates and miscellaneous fees.

Here is the link.
[url "http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/about/funding.php"]http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/about/funding.php[/url]

While it is true a detemined legislature could change the rules regarding license fund allocation, it would probably be a very tough sell politically.
[signature]

[EvilAsh]

The price we pay for fishing licenses is nothing for what you get in return. When I smoked cigarettes, I would pay $20+ for a carton. I understand now they're up to $38 a carton.
I fill up on gas for my van every week. Over $50/fill up.
I just payed $15 something for 'War of the Worlds' DVD. My wife just bought some hairspray at a salon for $12.95
Cost me $22 for a large pizza with everything and some buffalo wings.
I pay over a hundred bucks a month for satellite TV.
But I'm not going to pay for XM or Sirus radio.

My point is all in all if they raise the license to even $30 a year, I'm still getting a hell of a good deal.
[signature]