Maybe more fees!

[Mike]

Just read this in today's Nashua Telegraph.

Fish and game may create new fees


Published: Monday, Sep. 12, 2005

CONCORD (AP) – Hikers, kayakers and bird watchers in New Hampshire soon may have to pay fees to help the Fish and Game Department raise $5 million and avoid a fiscal crisis.

For decades, the agency has financed its operating budget solely on revenue from hunting and fishing licenses, but Executive Director Lee Perry said fewer people during the last 10 years have been hunting and fishing, while more are kayaking, hiking, birdwatching, and doing other outdoor activities that carry no fees.

Fish and Game officials and the Fish and Game Commission are reviewing possible options, including assessing new fees for answering bear nuisance calls.

 

[darren]

Maybe less people fish because it is too expensive. What is the fee in NH? In Mass a freshwater license is $28. I didn't fish freshwater this year just because of it. Carmel and I were going to take the canoe out and go fishing but when we found out that the prices had gone up again and it was going to cost us almost $60 to fish, we bailed on that idea.

I'm glad I can still fish and kayak on the ocean for free.

- darren

 

[sp1936]

Maybe less people fish because it is too expensive. What is the fee in NH?

Click here

Even more expensive than Mass.

Steve

 

[Mike]

QUOTE=darren] Maybe less people fish because it is too expensive. What is the fee in NH? In Mass a freshwater license is $28

Darren, a NH resident fresh water fishing license for this year (2005) is $35, a non-resident will pay $53.

Whoops, didn't see sp1936 response before I submitted this.

 

[amstony]

What kind of fee they looking at for hikers? I guess they'd need a NH Park Ranger at all the state trailheads like Appalachia on RT 2 ? They already assess a $3.00 per person fee when you enter the parks in a car. Perhaps we'll have to get a NH state hiking license!

 

[lumberzac]

If I have to get a license to hike in NH, I don't think I'll be hiking there anymore. It already costs me over $50 in gas to get there and back home.

 

[Periwinkle]

Fox25 News in Boston did a segment this morning on this. If you can call it a segment: it was a 15 second sound bite. The footage was of hikers ascending Artist's Bluff, probably something that's been sitting around in a can since Rabbi Hauer went missing for three days and was found dead a few years ago. An utterly useless clip with very limited information.

My inquiring mind wanted to know what was up. Failing to find anything easily on the web, I called NH Fish & Game in Concord. The representative told me that the information was released to the press prematurely. There is currently no proposal to collect fees from hikers. Fish & Game is looking for ways too cover shortfalls in their budget and exploring ideas to do that. The hiking fee was discussed, but they need public support to do this. It would likely require state legislation.

The representative also said that they are looking for input on this issue and ideas for raising cash. My first thought was to expand the existing search and rescue fine basis from "reckless or intentional" to just plain "stupid", but I didn't go there right off the bat.

All in all, it appears there won't be another hand out at the trailheads next weekend, or anytime soon.

 

[ExploreTheEast]

I'd pay a fee. I'm sure whatever they come up with, it'll still be much cheaper than a movie. Not to mention, for what I'd be paying, infinitely more valueable as well (in comparison to this year's movie selection at least).

I'm not agreeing that it's a good idea; only that if it happened, it wouldn't deter me from hiking.

 

[Fish&Game]

chill!

Hi everybody,

I'm the person at Fish and Game that Periwinkle talked to.

Just to clarify: There are NO specific proposals on the table. There are several hundred ideas that have been generated, but none of them have been researched or discussed enough to take them seriously. The funding information was not "released to the press prematurely," it was frankly misunderstood by the reporter who originally wrote about the situation.

The NH Fish and Game Department does a lot of important wildlife and habitat work in NH, I'm sure all hikers recognize that NH wouldn't be NH without our careful care of critters and the places they live. And yes indeed, it's common knowledge that Fish and Game is looking at a budget shortfall in the next couple years, and that we're looking to find new funding sources so we can uphold our responsibilities and keep doing all the things we do (including rescuing, you guessed it, unprepared hikers).

Despite the alarmed tone of various news reports, there are no new fees in the immediate offing. But we do need money! If anyone knows of a fair and sensible way to get money from the people who ENJOY NH's wild places but don't currently pay for the privelege of using them, we're happy to hear from you.

All best,
Liza

 

[Jim lombard]

Despite the alarmed tone of various news reports, there are no new fees in the immediate offing. But we do need money! If anyone knows of a fair and sensible way to get money from the people who ENJOY NH's wild places but don't currently pay for the privelege of using them, we're happy to hear from you.

Liza,
how about vanity plates? There are a number of types that could be done depending on a person's favorite activity. I wouldn't buy a hiking license.

 

[darren]

Liza,

Welcome to the website. Thank you for taking the time to join and post the information, I appreciate it.

- darren

 

[funkyfreddy]

If anyone knows of a fair and sensible way to get money from the people who ENJOY NH's wild places but don't currently pay for the privelege of using them, we're happy to hear from you. All best, Liza

Glad to be of service! Let's brainstorm a bit.....

1. Put a casino on top of Mt. Washington and have all of the profits go to Fish + Game, Wilderness preservation, habitat restoration, the Nature Conservancy, etc.

2. require blackjack tables, slot machines, or lotto machines in all huts on state or federal land, the profits going to Fish + Game, Wilderness preservation, habitat restoration, the Nature Conservancy, etc.

3. Put a toll booth on the Kancamangus highway during fall foliage season or

4. require NH state licenses or permits for leaf peeping from a motorized vehicle, passengers in NH w/o permits must be blindfolded during leaf peep season

5. one could also establish a sliding scale fee system for NH leaf peeping dependant upon whether one uses "special equipment" such as binoculars, contact lenses, still or video cameras, etc....... one might consider licensing fees for images captured in the state of NH, making distinctions between residents and non-residents, of course!

6. establish red light districts in all major NH cities ....where anything goes as long as the taxes get paid...... perhaps you should then change the NH state motto to "Live Free or Die..... After Taxes"

I'm sure any of these ideas would bring gobs more money into NH than hikers or their dirty boots would....

 

[sierra]

I have a different take on this. First Liz, it was considerate of you to even ask, most of us apprieciate the chance to respond, thank you for that. Now back to the point of money. Im old school, my view is instead of raising more money for more services, cut back on services in place so no more money is needed. I belive most serious backcountry users ie. hunters, hikers, birdwatchers and such just want to use the land. The Govt (no offense meant) seems to think we want fancy rest areas, fancy new bathrooms and many ammenities we really could live without. Liscenses should cover those who buy them, fisherman, hunters and such,
There is a system out west that requires hikers to buy a liscense of sorts for 5 dollars, it covers you in the event of a rescue, if you have not purchased that item, you may be liable for rescue cost. Using that system hikers pay for hikers. I think over the years hunters have felt slighted that thier funds go to rescueing hikers and that takes away from the money they contributed, quite frankly, I always agreed with them it was an unbalanced system. At least the system the west uses is opticional (sp) people have a choice, unlike the parking pass system currantly in place as a example.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

There is a system out west that requires hikers to buy a liscense of sorts for 5 dollars, it covers you in the event of a rescue, if you have not purchased that item, you may be liable for rescue cost. Using that system hikers pay for hikers.

Easy to see the economics of this. The numbers should be available to plug in. What is the average cost of a SAR, and how many are there (on average) per year. Divide that by 5 to get an idea of how many hikers need to pay to cover the costs.

Oh, and don't forget to aded in the administrative costs. Computer system must be set up to remember who paid, the office overhead from selling this, etc.

On the downside, how much SAR is volunteer? Would a system like this make the volunteers feel as if they shouldn't be doing what they do for nothing?

Also, would SOME people feel that they are entitled to a rescue, since they have paid for it? WOuld the number of SAR operations, then increase?

Know what? I suspect that F&G has already done these calculations and asked these questions.

 

[marty]

Im old school, my view is instead of raising more money for more services, cut back on services in place so no more money is needed. I belive most serious backcountry users ie. hunters, hikers, birdwatchers and such just want to use the land. The Govt (no offense meant) seems to think we want fancy rest areas, fancy new bathrooms and many ammenities we really could live without.

Sierra, while I fundamentally agree with what you are saying, I also realize that the number of serious hikers is greatly outweighed by people who come to New Hampshire for a variety of reasons. Doing a casual hike is one of many activities that they do and having such amenities is expected. Those tourist dollars are extremely important to the state, as well as a large number of people living and doing business in those areas. The expense of those amenities is possibly met or exceeded by implied tourist income.

Regards,
Marty

 

[sierra]

Marty,
Your point is well taken and I agree with your stats, BUT that does not justify charging the few who do not need the services.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Whoops, sorry that I just posted a new thread with link to same article in the Manchester Union Leader. Please move here as appropriate.

I might add that this past spring a new volunteer rescue team has been formed on the west side of the Whites, the Pemigewasett Valley Search and Rescue Team, also known as PVSART, which I joined in June. PVSART has already been instrumental in assisting NH Fish & Game with two very difficult and long litter carry out's from Bond Cliff and Flume Slide the past month. We are on the Web: www.pvsart.org

 

[sardog1]

This thread contains the seeds of several subthreads re: SAR and SAR fees which have been hashed over in the past on this site (and many other wilderness-oriented sites.) Before things splinter into multiple discussions, may I offer the following suggestion:

If you do want to put money directly into the NH Fish and Game coffers, because you value either ALL the work they do or just any part thereof, buy a NH fishing license or a NH hunting license, or make a nongame donation. You can do it online at the Fish and Game Licensing Fees and Requirements.

No, you don't have to use the license you buy. No, you don't have to agree with the politics, recreational preferences, or eating habits of absolutely everyone else who buys one of the licenses. Yes, you can have a say in how the money is spent, if you choose to get involved.

And no, no part of my personal income is derived from any of this. But I can tell you that the funding crisis from diminishing license purchases is having a direct, negative effect on SAR operations in NH, as well as all the other valuable services performed by Fish and Game. Ditto for Vermont and Maine.

In other words:

"Got wildlife habitat programs?"
"Got SAR?"
"Got hunter safety education?"
"Got the picture?"

 

[forestgnome]

Welcome, FishandGame!

Thanks for the response, Liza.

I agree 100% with Sierra about cutting spending before increasing revenues, and how about a moratorium on building fancy crap?!

However, this is F&G that needs to fix a budget shortfall. Is F&G part of USFS, who collects Parking Pass fees, or is F&G a seperate department?

Darren makes an interesting point about the fishing liscence cost that is exactly the same as tax cuts: If you increase a tax(like capital gains tax), then revenue DECREASES from that source. Why? Because people say " forget it, I'm not going to pay that much". But when you decrease the rate, voilla! Activity INCREASES, bringing in MORE revenue. Check the history, it happens every time.

So, Darren and Carmel didn't get a liscence, so 0$ came into the treasury. If it was a reasonable fee, they would have bought the liscence.

I generally support user-fee arrangements, so people using a service are the ones who pay for it. Having said that, Marty makes an important point that hikers are only a small % of the people who enjoy the services of F&G. Tourists who never use a trail, firearm or pole come to NH because of the mountains and the WILDLIFE! I sell photography of NH wildlife to tourists in local shops. Tourists love moose, bear and loons.

Liza, have you considered an anual benefit auction(old school!) I would be happy to donate a few pictures. We have a few great photograhpers on VFTT would probably do the same.

 

[David Metsky]

However, this is F&G that needs to fix a budget shortfall. Is F&G part of USFS, who collects Parking Pass fees, or is F&G a seperate department?

F&G is a NH State agency. USFS is a federal agency. There's no connection, the parking pass system is part of the USFS.

-dave-