Hunters demand money's worth

[h2ofwlr]

Dennis Anderson: Hunters demand money's worth
License fees pay for DNR fish and game projects and activities. But fish get a bigger share than deer and other wildlife.
By Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune
Last update: March 10, 2007 – 10:29 PM
http://www.startribune.com/533/story/1042207.html


Question: Should hunting license revenue be used to fund only wildlife-related projects and activities by the Department of Natural Resources? Or is it OK to use some funds gained by hunting-license sales to pay for lake surveys, walleye stocking and other DNR fisheries expenses?
Answers would appear to be straightforward: Hunters, through their license purchases, should fund hunting programs. And anglers should fund fisheries programs.

At least that's what Mark Johnson, executive director of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, believes. He sent a letter recently to DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten demanding that fish and wildlife expenditures from the Game and Fish Fund -- which is underwritten by license sales -- be balanced to reflect their origins.

Between fiscal years 2002 and 2009, more than $25 million in hunting license revenue will be spent on fisheries programs, Johnson said, adding, "Besides exhibiting an evident lack of fiscal accountability regarding Fisheries Division spending, this blatant disregard for the integrity of revenues collected from hunting licenses is overwhelming."

The MDHA wants the money paid back to the wildlife side of the ledger, and Johnson said the organization will seek legislative action to make it happen.

If the DNR is having difficulty finding projects to fund with hunting license revenue, Johnson suggested, it should consider cutting the deer license cost, funding a venison donation program and/or purchasing and managing more deer and moose habitat in northern Minnesota.

DNR Fish and Wildlife Director Dave Schad acknowledged Thursday the disparity in inflow vs. outgo between fishing and hunting license funds. But he said the problem, if it is a problem, can't be easily fixed, in part because some of the DNR's fishing-related expenditures -- intensified walleye stocking is one -- have been mandated by the Legislature.

Additionally, DNR fisheries employees outnumber DNR wildlife employees 450 to 200. This, in large part, accounts for the expenditure difference between the two subsets of the Fish and Wildlife Division.

"Fisheries programs by their nature are staff-intensive," Schad said. "Wildlife programs are more project-based."

Perhaps. But Johnson and the MDHA have a point, particularly considering that deer hunting license revenue accounts for nearly 80 percent of hunting money in the Game and Fish Fund.

A good chunk of that money nurtures walleyes and muskies, not deer or other wildlife.

One way to more proportionately align Game and Fish Fund expenses and revenues would be to increase the cost of a resident fishing license (now $17) by $3 to $5. But that could dissuade some anglers from buying licenses, reducing the net gain that might be achieved.

Fisheries programs also could be cut, at least those the Legislature hasn't mandated. But, given the political support for fishing in Minnesota, and the benefit the sport provides to tourism and other business interests, that's not likely to happen.

Schad said that in the 1990s, the situation was reversed: Fishing brought in more money to the Game and Fish Fund than hunting did. But hunting got more money.

Additionally -- and adding to the complexity of the issue -- wildlife, Schad said, received disproportionately more from the DNR than fisheries between 2000 and 2007, when all sources of income and expenditures are considered.

This would include the general fund, various stamp accounts and bonding, among other revenue sources.

"If we're going to adopt a philosophy that funding should be balanced, we think we should consider all funding sources, not just the Game and Fish Fund," Schad said.

A few thoughts:

Johnson is on solid ground arguing that hunting and fishing license expenditures should be aligned as closely as possible with their funding sources. But his argument can be carried too far: Should deer license revenue only pay for deer-related expenses? Or are duck, pheasant and other wildlife management costs OK to attribute also to this income?

And what of the relative popularity of hunting and fishing in Minnesota? The state has about 2 million anglers, Schad said, and fewer than half that number of hunters.

The bigger and more important question is this: Why is the cost of fish and wildlife management in Minnesota borne only -- or largely -- by hunters and anglers?

Important parts of the state's economy are underpinned by these activities, and their funding -- and sustenance in the form of clean water and open lands -- would be better assigned to the population as a whole.

Thus the notion of setting aside a fraction of the state sales tax to conservation.

More on that Sunday, when I interview House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, on prospects the Legislature will finally pass a constitutional amendment proposal to intensify conservation in Minnesota.


Dennis Anderson • danderson@startribune.com