State aims to raise fees for hunting and fishing
BUDGET: Fish and Game says money needed; some Bush folks less than happy.
By JOEL GAY
Anchorage Daily News
http://www.adn.com/front/story/5815657p-5742190c.html
(Published: November 22, 2004)

Resident hunting licenses would double in cost, to $50, while fishing licenses would rise by $5 if the Legislature approves a major overhaul in fees proposed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

The state says it needs $9 million more a year to replace aging sportfish hatcheries, institute predator control, operate shooting ranges and conduct basic management. Given the steady pace of government budget cuts, officials figure that boosting license fees is the best bet to raise the funds.

But at a time when license sales are lower than they were a decade ago, officials say the trick is to increase fees without scaring off hunters and fishermen -- particularly nonresidents, who account for three-fourths of all license revenue.

"We need to be careful," said Matt Robus, director of wildlife conservation.

Indeed, the proposed increases may be especially unwelcome in rural Alaska. Tanana resident Pat Moore cursed when he heard the news and said some in his Yukon River village might choose to hunt or trap illegally rather than pay the higher fees.

"(Gov.) Frank Murkowski and all his buddies can afford that," Moore said, "but we can't afford it out here. It just makes outlaws out of everybody."

Hunting and fishing have declined in popularity over the last decade, but they remain big business in Alaska. Residents and visitors contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the state economy pursuing their outdoor interests. Fish hatcheries alone generate $45 million a year in economic activity, while the sport hunting industry is worth more than $200 million a year, according to Fish and Game.

But the Fish and Game divisions that manage hunting and fishing are unique among state agencies in that they receive almost no funding from the state treasury. One-third to one-half of their revenues come from license and big game tag sales, which totaled $20 million in 2003. Most of the rest comes from federal taxes on guns, ammunition and fishing tackle.

The sportfish division is financially healthy, said Fish and Game spokeswoman Sarah Gilbertson. The proposed increases are aimed at bolstering the state's flagging fish hatchery program. By raising a projected $5.5 million, the division could build a sportfish hatchery in Fairbanks and renovate or aid hatcheries in Anchorage and Southeast.

Residents would pay $20, up $5, for an annual license, while the popular combination hunting/fishing license would jump from $39 to $65. King salmon stamps would remain at $10 under the plan.

Nonresident fishermen would pay $5 to $25 more, depending on the duration of their licenses. The most popular license, good for a single day, would cost $15, while seven-day licenses would be $50. King stamp prices would rise $5 to $25 also.

The wildlife division needs higher increases because it's in worse financial shape, said spokesman Bruce Bartley. License fees and federal grants haven't kept pace with inflation and the cost of new programs forced upon the agency by the Legislature and Board of Game, such as opening rifle ranges and expanding predator control.

"The bottom line is, we're strapped," Bartley said. Unless the division can raise another $3.5 million a year, game managers will be forced to reduce basic management efforts, including population surveys, he said. With less information, managers would be more conservative, possibly cutting back hunting seasons and bag limits.

Doubling the resident hunting license fee would raise nearly $500,000 a year, Fish and Game predicts. Boosting the combination hunting/fishing license by $26 would bring the division nearly $1 million.

Smaller gains would come from doubling trapping fees, to $30, and raising the waterfowl stamp to $10. Applications for Tier II hunts that had previously been free would cost $10 under the new program.

Nonresident hunters would see a $15 boost for a basic license, to $100. But the biggest revenue producer would be raising big game tag fees for nonresident hunters. Brown bear tags would jump from $500 to $600, caribou tags from $325 to $400, and a bison tag would cost $1,000, up from $450. Other tags would increase from $30 to $400.

If the fees win approval, nonresidents would pay nearly 80 percent of the $3.5 million expected annually.

The additional money would be used to fund a range of wildlife management programs, Bartley said, including surveys necessary to justify predator control. The state has been sued once by wildlife protection groups that contend it didn't have enough information to warrant killing wolves from airplanes and more suits are expected, he said.

"We're having to spend a lot of money making those programs defensible," Bartley said, even though the actual shooting is being performed by private pilots using their own airplanes.

New indoor shooting ranges in Fairbanks and Juneau have also sapped the division's budget. The Legislature asked the division to build them but didn't provide supplemental funding. Construction and operating costs have proven higher than expected.

Even though the state charges a fee to use the ranges, wildlife conservation director Robus said, "it's costing us three or four dollars for every dollar we bring in."

Department officials may ask the Legislature to help fund the rifle ranges and other educational programs, he said, which would free up some money, though not enough to scrap the proposed increases.

If the Legislature approves the new fees, hunting in Alaska would still be a bargain, Robus said. A resident who hunted moose or elk would pay $50. The average cost for resident hunters in nine Western states is $76 for elk and $134 for moose.

For nonresidents, the higher fees put Alaska in the middle among Western states. At $100, the license is on par with most states'. A tag for moose, sheep or mountain goat in Alaska is half to a third the cost for nonresident hunters in most states, while deer or elk tags would be comparable.

Department officials are hoping the higher fees don't backfire and chase away hunters and fishermen. Sales didn't drop after the last fee increase in 1993, Robus said. In fact, total revenue from licenses and game tags has risen steadily since then, according to Fish and Game figures.

But several categories of sales have declined, including both resident and nonresident hunting, fishing and combination licenses. The numbers suggest that fewer people are fishing and hunting, but they're spending more on items such as king salmon stamps and big game tags.

Most sportsmen have yet to hear about the proposed new fees, which were finalized this week. But an informal poll of hunters and fishermen found reactions ranging from lukewarm support to outright opposition.

Members of the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee understand the need for higher fees, said chairman Bob Churchill, though they question why the Legislature has cut and finally eliminated direct funding for the wildlife and sportfish divisions, which benefit the entire state.

In the Western Alaska village of Aniak, the higher fees will be hard to swallow, said Central Kuskokwim Advisory Committee chairman Mark Matter. With milk costing $9 a gallon and gasoline nearly $4, even a small increase hits rural residents hard, he said.

"I don't think it's warranted right now, especially with a budget surplus" of several hundred million dollars from high oil prices, he said. "The indigenous people out here have a right to hunt and fish and trap, and to impose higher fees in a cash-strapped area, it doesn't make any sense."

In McGrath, Ray Collins said he doesn't mind paying the higher fee but wonders why hunters and fishermen have to carry the burden:

"I wish there was some way to take advantage of the photographers and wildlife viewers, so that everybody that enjoys wildlife contributes and not just hunters."

A proposal to charge all wildlife viewers a $15 fee failed to get through the Legislature last year.

The Legislature also has the final say on the proposed hunting and fishing license fees. It could approve or reject them outright, adjust them up or down or devise a completely different system, such as ramping up fees over several years.

Fish and Game expects to post the proposal on its Web site in the next week and to begin taking comments on the plan.

Our governor was whining about needing to raise taxes when oil was $18 bbl. Now that oil is $50 bbl he still wants to raise taxes - only he calls them something else. This year there is a new $50 fee for fishing guides as well. Yet he still proposes building a completely new road from Fairbanks to Circle along a new route, even though there is already a good road that the state cannot afford to maintain. And another from King Salmon to Chignik. If he has his way the good hunting in Alaska will soon be gone.

Folks,

As everyone probably knows I lived in village Alaska for many years. Yes, it was a big village but a village none the less. The locals pretty much did not see a reason that they should have a license anyway since they figured that it was there right and not a privilege to hunt as they saw fit. In my opinion I just think that if the higher license costs are problematic that the rural folks just won't buy them.

With the lack of F&G enforcement for subsistance users in the bush an increase in license cost is a mute point. The residents on the road system and non-residents tourist hunters will carry the burden of the increased funding.

Having said the above I believe that any Alaskan should thank his lucky stars for the abundance of game he can hunt on that resident license. I would have gladly paid 4 times the cost for what that license let me do.

Regards,

Mark

I'd be more then willing to pay higher fees, as soon as they cut all the bs out of the state budget. I haven't heard the proposed budget #'s, but I have a feeling it isn't dropping, yet there are going to be lots of increased "user fees" aka taxes.

The fishing license increase seems reasonable, the hunting license seems too much of increase, especially in light of hearing a F&G guy on the radio who said if the license cost had kept in step with inflation, it would be $36, hmm, wonder why the fealt they could double it to $50?

I have a feeling with the increase, those that get the combo hunting,fishing,trapping out of habbit, but really don't trap, will just get a hunting/fishing license. I'd also suspect at $50, many folks who picked up a hunting license, just in case, won't be buying them.

I dont care if they increase it if they use the money for Fish and game.If its used for troopers to get new trucks to ride the road its BS.There is a need for more field biologist who are for hunting not the anti biologist they have in there now.