Maybe more fees!

[Fish&Game]

thanks for the ideas...

Believe it or not, the Mt. Washington Summit Casino hadn't been proposed until this forum!

In seriousness, though, as Sardog1 and others pointed out: If you value the work of Fish and Game, you can buy a license (whether or not you use it) or make a donation to the Nongame Program -- that will help, since we are a self-funded agency (forestnome: no, we are not a part of the US Forest Service, though we do work as partners with them on hikeSafe). We also get some project money from moose plates, so if you don't have one it's a nice gesture as well as a fashion statement.

Here's a gross oversimplification of our budget situation: Our revenue stays static because of level license sales, while the cost of doing business goes up. It's like never, ever getting a raise over many years.... while your rent goes up, your groceries get more expensive, the kids need new shoes, the car breaks down, the health insurance premiums go through the roof -- but you still have to keep on doing everything you did before with the same amount of money.

Sierra and others make a good point about "living within our means," which may eventually mean dozens of layoffs and cutting back on programs. Fewer biologists to manage fish and wildlife species, fewer conservation officers to enforce wildlife laws, no one to tell the straight story to the media (we do try!), less money to conserve fast-dwindling habitat. Worst-case scenario, threatened and endangered species will be extirpated after the entire southern tier is paved over, then we'll have to do individual species recoveries -- really, really bad and expensive idea.

Anyway, I'm just here trying to help people make the connection between wildlife work and our quality of life here in NH. Some of you may be aware of the Wildlife Action Plan that's been under development for the last few years (all the states are doing it). It'll be available on the Fish & Game website in a couple weeks... check it out for a fuller understanding about comprehensive, long-range plans for 100+ "at risk" species and habitats in the state. I hope it will give you a sense of the scope of our work and the many partners we deal with to try and keep NH's wildlife and habitats healthy and sustainable.

That's enough out of me! I won't be able to spend much time here but thanks for the warm welcome and I hope to pop in from time to time. Keep the funding ideas coming -- I will make sure they get to the right place.

Best,
Liza

 

[BrentD22]

Nh F&g

What serves (if any) could the F&G cut from their budget?

I really do not wish to paint a negative picture on F&G or anything...

F&G in Mass. (yes I know it's not NH) have several field offices and basiclly offer the same services on a smaller scale as the NH F&G. I have personally observed MA F&G doing very little if any real work. Once after a long hike in winter on the Mid-State Trail I was to meet a family member at a un-named F&G field office for him to pick me up. The guys where nice enough to allow me to come inside and keep warm while I waited. Yes that was nice, huh. Although the only thing I saw take place was 4 F&G employess just hanging out at 2pm. They really where not doing anything. Just chatting with me and each other about the Red Sox, Pats, local crap, ect. I was there for about 1 1/2 hours (a lot longer than planned). Not once did any work that was obvious get done.

Another department, but it's all connected (same tax base ect.) is the State Park Service in MA. I often frequent MA state parks. There is normally 2-3 emplyees at the booths that you stop at to pay parking fees when entering the park. Does this really require more than 1 person? There is also numerous life guards, but only 1/3 are at the water front at any one time. The rest hang-out in a shed or other first aid area. I understand the need for at least 1 or 2 life guards at the first aid area, but not 4 or 5. Few parks are clean, many are run down and dirty. Not the kind of dirty or run down that requires mass amounts of money to fix, the kind that some hard work and cleaning would fix easily. Cleaning doesn't seem possible because the non-life guard staff are busy collecting fees with 2 other employees hanging out and talking.

Anyway to make a long post short I too believe cutting is needed. NH F&G may be way better (or worst for all I know) than MA. The point is this kind of work takes place in a lot of government local, state, and federal. If government ran it's self like a business it would be out of business. All government agencies local, state, and federal need to take a long honest look at themselves and what they can do to save money before asking the tax payer to find more money to fork over. If there revnues are down maybe it's because they are not doing a good job at what they do and don't deserve more budget, but instead a less budget and lower fees.

I relize that in the above post (that was posted while I typed) makes great points that F&G do help NH and MA with quality of life aspects, endangered species, ect. There are great things they do. I would thing though the preseption about the agencies would become even worst if fees are created or raised to cover short falls in revnues. In my work at a non-profit youth agency when money doesn't come inthrough donations, and fee for service programs we don't raise our fees we do a better job at bringing in money, we cut part-time staff hours when not required, we bust our buts to advertise the fee for service programs to bring in honest money, we make more appeals to our funding sources, write more grants, create programs that may bring in more grants or fees. Just simply raising or creating fees for the same service isn't the answer!

 

[Puck]

In NH is the F&G funded only by lisence fees? This could set up a bad scenerio that policy would be dictated by hunter/angler groups that may override concerns from other citizens and studies by biologists. PA has this problem see that last two issues of Audubon magazine.

Could funds could come from the general fund? This would assure non hunters/anglers would always have a voice. I understand that liquor stores are state run in NH, therefor your next beer could support the F&G budget.

 

[Zimmer]

Wow, Liza -- Kudos to you for joining, posting, and reading. I hope the comments are helpful.

I've been fishing in NH since I was about 8-10 years old. Over 30 years. I have bought a license pretty much every year since I turned 16. I'm at the point now where I would probably stop doing so (except that my husband often buys me one for Mother's Day, so I guess F&G has my husband to thank for that). $37 is just too much to pay for fishing, considering that we don't fish all that much any more. We hike, we bike, we golf (doesn't cost us) -- we have lots of things that can take the place of fishing. Basically, that will mean that our elementary-school-aged kids will grow up NOT fishing, and when they are old enough to be revenue-generators for the F&G, they might not be.

Based on your statement that revenue is flat, and based on the increase in fishing license fees over the last ten years or so, I would guess that you're indirectly saying that fewer licenses have been sold. This being the case -- that there are fewer fishermen in NH -- I would suggest first that F&G try reducing the price of licenses to see if the numbers revive, or secondarily, if that doesn't work, that hatchery and stocking expenditures be cut. If there aren't that many people fishing, it doesn't seem necessary to stock that many fish.

I also wish that there were better enforcement and higher fines for violations. In all my years of fishing, I think I have been asked for a license only two or three times, and always at the rather obvious places (e.g. where my car is visibly parked beside the road). If fees were much higher and licenses less expensive, people would have more incentive to be legal. Furthermore, I recall one summer on an early Saturday evening taking a walk around the back side of Profile Lake (fly fishing only) in Franconia Notch, and seeing several people using worms and pulling out many more sizable trout than the limit. Based on their sheepish looks and, in one case, their lack of rod (just line, hook, and worm), they knew that they were breaking the law. I wasn't even sure who or where I should call to report this (and it really irked me!), so I didn't. Maybe F&G could erect signs at some of the fly-fishing only sites with a phone number to report violators?

I'll also add that though we often catch and release, for the kids, it's also a point of pride for them to have provided dinner. With the mercury situation, my enthusiasm for eating what we have caught has dwindled quite a bit over the past decade, and they themselves are somewhat confused by it all. "Let's go fishing. But we can't eat it because we've already had our mercury for the month." I do realize that this is beyond the purview of F&G, but it does sometimes seem that F&G might be unable to comment on environmental issues in the State for fear of stepping on DES's toes.

Finally, regarding the hiker thing (yes, I know that you've said it's premature, but the can of worms is open, so I'll comment...). I guess I don't quite understand what has been conceptualized -- concretely or otherwise. Does the State actually have the right to charge people to hike on federal land (i.e. WMNF)? Or would the State be considering only charging for trailheads in State Parks? If the former, I don't quite see how the State can do that, and as a "north of the Notches" resident of a town that is more than 50% National Forest, I really object to the idea that the State might charge me to take a walk in my own town. If the latter, it would seem to me that F&G might be shooting Parks and Rec in the foot. If I decide not to park at the Flume because I'm going to incur a State fee, and instead park at Lincoln Woods and head up Osseo, the State might well be missing out on the revenue I would spend at the concessions and gift shop after my hike. (or is that an independent concession? not sure...).

Again, thanks for checking in on this thread. I'm really glad to see F&G taking an interest in hearing opinions.

 

[Double Bow]

Here's a serious suggestion for fund raising. I think that a variety of outdoor activity themed license plates should be made available. Have ones for hunting, fishing, hiking, kayaking, etc. I would definately get a license that had a boot print on it or something and I'd feel good about what the money was going for.

 

[NewHampshire]

Well, Im coming into this a bit late, so sorry .

Look, I love what the F&G department does. I enjoy the woods very much for as long as I can out of the year. But Im really getting a bit tired of all this. Between my Fishing and Hunting licenses and all the multitude tags and habitat fee you have to buy it gets REAL expensive. I understand money is what runs the world. But squeezing too much money out of someone will eventually have a negative impact. When my friends and I heard this (now we know mis reported) story we thought "Well it aint ever gonna pass, so it looks like Fishing and Hunting licenses are going up."

You want ideas and still get some good money? Raise fine fees for poachers (the most disrespctful of people in the woods I can think of.) I dont know what the current fine for, say, poaching a deer out of season is, but how about smacking them reaaaaal good with a bad fine. Kills two birds with one stone.

But to all the folks here I do have one thing to say. Where Im sure some places in the F&G dept. could use cutbacks, the one places that needs more trained personnel is Conservation officers. There is way too much land and too few of them to patrol for law breakers.

And one more idea. If you buy a hunting license you are required to pay a one time habitata fee. But fisherman are not (and as noted above I am a fisherman as well.) How about they share the burden?

Ok, outside of all that, I just want to say thank you to the F&G folks for their hard work. Its hard to complain about results when the woods and wildlife are doing so well.
Brian

 

[Happyfeet]

My two cents worth;
Issuing special vanity liscense plates would raise some revenue but a large percentage of hikers wouldn't be tapped and that would be people like me, out of staters.
Brentd22 talks about state employees not doing cleaning or other work. Not to defend bad employees but there very well could be another side to it. Having been a municipal employee over 17 yrs I have seen the following. With budget cuts, supplies and equipment purchases are often delayed or cut all together leaving employees with little or no resources to do an adequate job.
Again, just my take on this.

 

[arghman]

Raise ATV fines for riding where they're not supposed to, and/or make some other agency in charge of enforcing ATV rules. Or call it Fish, Game, and Backcountry Police & Rescue and set budget accordingly to reflect a broadened scope.

 

[--M.]

Welcome, Liza and F&G!

Welcome indeed.

This is one of the best threads I have seen on these boards: a true and actual public service.

Liza, I hope you see this as democracy in action and have gotten lots of good public comment from interested citizens.

For my part, I gladly pay my share for the benefits I accrue as a member of this (uber-)community. Hesitantly, I would add that, under certain circumstances, I would be willing to pay more. As a true NE Yankee, however, I caution strongly against misreading that sentiment, and would take a dim view of anyone offering that they were "from the government" and "here to help." That said, we citizens must take responsibility for our northern woods, including paying for their upkeep, and

I again applaud this fine thread!

--Mike

 

[Lawn Sale]

Have they been listening to our Governor or what, he wanted to do something similar last year but the people made a stink about it.

I'm also against a permit to hike, even if it's just a small amount. As others have said, you should raise fees on the lawbreakers rather than tax the rest of us. I'd also make the people who require additional services (ie: rescues) pay for them. When I go into the woods, even on just a slackpacking trip, I always have enough to spend the night if I have to, it's part of being prepared.

If fees are raised in this manner, not only will my trips to the area decrease, but so will the incidentals, such as eating out, shopping, and the like. I'm sure others are the same way, so the permit system will have a net negative overall effect. I have 2 cars, my brother has 2, and who knows which one we'll take. If it's a permit system like Maine's proposal was, it's more of a hassle to get permits for 4 vehicles than it's worth, which is why I don't visit the State parks over here. There are a lot of hikes here in Maine we could do, but there is something mythical about the NH mountains, which is why we go there.

 

[Hiker Ruth]

Hiking and Kayaking Fees

Wow - hard to imagine a tax that Massachusetts didn't think of first! I'm pretty sure it won't fly in New Hampshire.

Liz stated that "The NH Fish and Game Department does a lot of important wildlife and habitat work in NH". Seems to me this benefits more than just hikers and paddlers. In fact, I don't see that much wildlife when I'm out hiking and paddling - I think I see more when I'm driving. Therefore - doesn't everyone benefit from their work? Why single out hikers and paddlers? Doesn't everyone benefit from their work - both NH residents and tourists - whether they walk, hike, paddle or drive?

 

[Tim Seaver]

Lawn Sale: I'd also make the people who require additional services (ie: rescues) pay for them. When I go into the woods, even on just a slackpacking trip, I always have enough to spend the night if I have to, it's part of being prepared.

You seem to be implying that people who carry overnight gear never need SAR services. I don't think the SAR history in NH shows that to be the case. There are plenty of instances where large, well equipped groups have accidents that require expensive evacuations ( like the Outward Bound group last year.

It's a bit dated, but there is some excellent information at the Wilderness Medical Society's website. Note that "not carrying overnight gear" is not mentioned as a significant contributor to SAR calls:

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study provide quantitative information on wilderness search and rescue in New Hampshire from which we may attempt to tailor education and prevention efforts. The most prevalent demographic group requiring search and rescue in New Hampshire can be reached by targeting men aged 30 to 40 years who reside in New England and engage in hiking. To decrease the major precipitants of search and rescue, the focus should be on preventing wilderness users from getting lost and on preventing lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries. Wilderness deaths may be prevented by focusing attention on cardiac health in wilderness users older than 50 years and on water safety.

Which raises an interesting question: Given the statistics, should 50+ year old hikers with heart conditions who "recklessly" overexert themselves pay for their own evacuation? How about people who needlessly carry heavy overnight gear on, say, the OBP/Falling Waters loop, thus putting them at risk for a lower extremity injury, while the "responsible" people with light packs look on in horror as their tax dollars waft away beneath the churning blades of a Sikorsky Blackhawk?

 

[Lawn Sale]

You seem to be implying that people who carry overnight gear never need SAR services. I don't think the SAR history in NH shows that to be the case. There are plenty of instances where large, well equipped groups have accidents that require expensive evacuations ( like the Outward Bound group last year.

You are correct, I was making that assumption.

 

[Waumbek]

You can email your ideas to Lee Perry, Executive Director, NH Fish and Game. The address is at the end of this link.

 

[sardog1]

When you're drafting your letter to Director Perry, you might want to reflect on this:

Sixty-eight years ago hunters (of which I am not one) lobbied Congress to impose a tax on firearms that has raised billions of dollars (yes, that's billions with a "b") for wildlife habitat. It's called the Pittman -- Robinson Act, aka the Wildlife Restoration Act. They expanded the tax over the years to include more of their equipment, including archery tackle. Anglers (of which I have been one, and would be again if I had more time) did the same thing in 1950. You can read a summary here..

IIRC, there was a proposal a few years back to do the same with a tax on camping equipment and similar items. And if IIRC again, it failed because of insufficient public support and substantial opposition from some of the equipment manufacturers.