DNR Q&A's

[Lee Borgersen]

         
                          DNR     FAQ's

 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/heritage/index.html   

How does the DNR spend license dollars?

Anglers and hunters invest in Minnesota's future each time they buy a license. Their dollars go into a special account called the Game and Fish Fund, a dedicated account that ensures license dollars are used only for fish and wildlife-related work. Your License Dollars At Work   details how that money is spent.

By Minnesota Statue 97A.055 Subd 4b., the Citizen oversight committees also are appointed to review Game and Fish Fund budgets. View the committees' budget recommendations.


Why is a license fee increase so urgent this session?

The urgency relates to the fact that in November the state's top budget forecasters projected the Game and Fish Fund will "go negative" as early as July 2013. This is at least one year earlier than the previous forecast. As a result, unless the Legislature takes action this 2012 session, the DNR will need to make significant additional cuts between now and July 2013 to stay within its budget. These cuts will affect the quality of hunting, fishing and natural resources law enforcement.


What changed? What's driving the urgency?

The situation has changed from last year for three reasons that total up to $7.6 million in less revenue. The 20-day state government shutdown in July 2011 cost the Game and Fish Fund about $2.2 million because fishing licenses could not be sold. In November 2011, state budget forecasters, who assess a broad scope of economic data, revised downward their fishing license revenue projections by $1.1 million. Finally, in late 2011, federal budget forecasters predicted a $4.3 million decline in revenue into Minnesota's Game and Fish Fund from Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson federal reimbursement programs.

Learn more in this handout  or view our presentation. 


What will "no action" mean to me?

For anglers, negative fish management impacts include less fish stocking … less survey information about the health and status of fish populations … less information on catch rates and the effectiveness of fishing various regulations … less research that improves fishing quality … less time for DNR staff to work with you and attend your meetings … and less emphasis on youth aquatic and fishing education programs.

For hunters, negative wildlife management impacts include less intensive management of the Wildlife Management Area system … no Wildlife Section-conducted special hunts … no roadside pheasant, ruffed grouse drumming count, waterfowl migration or predator surveys … less research on ducks, deer, wild turkeys and other species … less technical assistance to citizens and organizations that want to help wildlife … and less time spent on nuisance animal complaints.

Other impacts include vacant conservation officer stations, less outreach to Southeast Asians, longer wait times for commercial licenses and slower customer service from the License Center.

Learn more about impacts in your area.


Why can't Legacy Amendment (sales tax) dollars solve the problem?


Legacy Amendment dollars cannot nor ever were intended to pay for core fish, wildlife and enforcement operations. In fact, the Legislature specifically stated that Legacy dollars could not be used for those functions. This means expenditures for staff, field offices, vehicles and other infrastructure will continue to come largely from the Game and Fish Fund, which is dependent on license sale revenues.


What about proceeds from the Minnesota State Lottery?

The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) oversees the share of lottery proceeds dedicated to natural resources, known as the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF). Lottery dollars do not flow directly to the DNR. Instead, LCCMR members make funding recommendations to the Legislature for special environment and natural resource projects. DNR isn't always a partner in LCCMR-funded projects. When DNR is a partner, any money received is specifically dedicated to fund the DNR's share of the approved project.


What is the status of the DNR's license proposal?

The DNR fee structure proposed last year by Gov. Mark Dayton (see The Cost above) has been modified this year by the lawmakers who are introducing license fee bills in the House and Senate. As a result, the DNR's original proposal is not moving forward. Instead, similar but different proposals are being developed and discussed in the House and Senate. The Senate version is Senate File 1830.  The House version is House File 2951.


How did the DNR arrive at these license options?

The DNR obtained professional expertise from Southwick Associates and Responsive Management, two firms that provide data through research, modeling and customer surveys. More detail is available on the Background & Context page.


Why is the DNR proposing proportionately lower non-resident angling license fees?

Though a general fishing license fee increase has not occurred since 2001 there have been two price increases for non-resident fishing licenses since that time. In one instance, the Legislature and governor authorized an increase on non-resident fishing licenses to offset revenue lost by not requiring the licensing of portable ice fishing houses (those not left overnight). Similarly, the Legislature and governor authorized a $2 surcharge on non-resident fishing licenses to raise revenue for invasive species work. These previous price adjustments were factored into the current price structure.


Why did the proposed husband and wife combination license increase so much?

This license is proposed to increase more than others because it has been under-priced. The new price is still a discount but not to a disproportional amount.


What is DNR doing to fund important Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) work?

The DNR is proposing to add an additional $3 surcharge to all non-resident angling licenses. Additionally, DNR developed an "Omnibus Policy bill" that contains issues related to AIS. This bill has been introduced as HF 2153 . Long-term funding needs are detailed in this report.


Getting youth involved in the outdoors is important. Does the DNR's proposal address this?