Bowsite.com

DNR has budget short fall

I don't have an answer for you close, but from past memory I don't believe it's a very high percentage. In fact, many wildlife areas get minimal management, occasionally a prescribed burn or select cut, maybe a parking lot or trail improvement, etc.

For sure a hunting license needs to be required on public grounds. Many border private and the deer don't know the difference other than one has better feed. Though my use of public lands in my area is mainly smaller to mid-size parcels, they harbor plenty of whitetails as they have thick bedding cover and are adjacent to ag lands.

There are several options available that the DNR refuses to explore. Lifetime licenses, increased non-resident fees, special draw only public lands, the list really is endless.

Another annoying thing is the horseback riders. It says foot traffic only, yet horses are ok? They tear things up as bad as ATV's.

Not sure Camp, but good point. All the ones I know of locally were purchased (for the most part, they've occasionally had some small additions) long before my time. Don't see bikes or horses on any of the wildlife areas I've been at. Then again, we have a state trail (abandoned railroad track turned trail) that allows bikes/horses seasonally in Kewaunee and southern Door counties.

We have the Gandy dancer. RR bed up in northwest wisc. Controlled by ? Allows snowmobiles and bikes but no ATV and the horseback people use it but not for horses. Go figure. Who determines trail use?

Could be a slippery slope. There was in the past a move to license all public land users in the State but it failed. If you require non hunters to use the system they then have a say in its use. Already happened in State parks where non-hunting trail users stop hunting.

I don't know where the money comes from for purchasing all the lands but that would help determine use I would think. As for enforcing users, I see it all the time where certain activities are not allowed but people do it all the time without getting cited.

The article I read had no mention of non-res fee increase. Why? I don't mind paying a few dollars more but I'll be pissed if they don't raise the non res fees as well. I did the math in a different thread already and we can eliminate that shortfall completely by raising non res fees to a number that is still far less than our neighbors but much more realistic than what we have now. I also agree with charging non hunters a small fee to use the parks as well but the number I saw seemed too high. $5-10 for a day pass. That's way too steep. It should be closer to $2-3. I dont mind sharing the woods with non hunters but I don't want to have to foot the whole bill for them to enjoy the woods too.

I might be wrong, isn't the majority of land that the state purchases funded through the Stewardship fund? Also what is the state doing with the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds? I have no problem paying my fair share and instead of requiring non motorized boats to register, just charge a simple $5 per day, $50 per year boat launch access fee for all state controlled boat launches. Many counties have taken this action and it more than covers the cost of maintaining those launches

I've said before and I will again. I will almost guarantee that I make less than most on this site. This is due to several things in my life and I am not complaining at all. My point being I am 100% in favor of raising license fees. Especially if some of that is for sure going towards the resource. Hell I'd be for a substantial increase just to get more wardens in the field. Another "benefit" to raising fees that will rankle some. It will eliminate some of the not so serious hunters. So many toot the horn that we need more and more hunters. These same people never want to talk about access for all these hunters they want to bring into the fold.

You'll never hear me say we need more hunters, never.

As for more wardens, great, but you also need a system that backs them. Does absolutely no good to catch more bad guys if you're just gonna slap 'em on the wrist and let 'em loose! I see a lot of that in my area...it's frustrating to the residents and an insult to the local wardens out busting their asses to do a good job.

I see that Wisconsin is considering raising hunting license fees again. My opinion is that resident licenses should remain as is and nonresident fees should be raised. To my knowledge, Wisconsin is the only state that allows a first time buyer reduced prices. A deer gun first time buyer fee in Wisconsin is $79.75. The cost for archery is the same. For nonresidents there are several options available. First they can purchase a Conservation Patron for $600.00. That includes everything that is offered for hunting and fishing. They can purchase a Conservation Patron Military for $165.00. They can purchase a Sports license that includes Fishing, Small Game, and Deer Gun Hunting and the cost is $275.00. Juniors age 12-17 get the same license for $36.00. A student sports license is $60.00 and a Military Sports is the same. Now let’s take a look at just the cost for deer licenses for nonresidents. A deer gun runs them $160.00. The cost for a deer archery license is the same as is a Crossbow license. They can also purchase an Anterless Deer tag for $20.00. If you wonder where I am going with this keep reading. I often apply for tags out west. Most of the tags are on a draw basis and there is no guarantee that you will get a tag. A fee is paid just to apply and that varies from state to state. Some states you have to buy a license with no guarantee of a tag. Some states will refund that if a tag is not drawn some will not. No let’s look at some of those states. In California a nonresident must purchase a non-refundable hunting license for $163.65 just to apply for deer. You must also submit $276.05 for the deer application. So if drawn the fee for the deer license is $439.70. Colorado is not quite as bad. You upfront cost for a deer license is 379.00. You are required to buy a habitat stamp for $10.00. So if drawn the total cost would be $389.00. If not drawn, the cost for applying and receiving a bonus point is $43.00 and that is not returned. In Idaho a nonresident must purchase a non-refundable hunting license for $154.75. To apply for a deer there is a $14.75 application fee that is you guessed it, non-refundable. If you are lucky and draw the deer tag your cost would be $471.25. Let’s look a state a little closer to home. In Iowa you must purchase a $298.00 Deer license, a $128.00 anterless license, a $112.00 hunting license and a $13.00 habitat fee is also charged to apply for that deer license. If unsuccessful all will be refunded but $50.00 which gives you a point towards next year. If drawn the total cost would be $551.00. In Kansas a Whitetail Deer application fee is $442.50 and if drawn another $97.50 license fee is required. So to hunt Whitetail in Kansas the cost would be $540.00. If not drawn they keep $26.50. Arizona is not fee friendly to non-residents. You must purchase a $160.00 non-refundable combination license to apply. You are also charged $15.00 upfront to apply. If you draw a deer tag you are charged another $300.00 making the total cost to hunt deer in Arizona is $475.00. If not drawn the cost for applying would be $175.00 but you do get a point for next year. Nowhere do you find a first time buyer discount and look at the fees. That $160.00 guaranteed Deer license and the $20.00 anterless tag in Wisconsin looks like a real deal doesn’t it! All of the states above treat the resident hunters will low costs and that is the way it should be. Wisconsin needs to take a look at what other states are charging non-residents and increase their costs not the residents.

There was talk years ago about an outdoor tax on purchases that would generally be used for outdoor activities, binoculars, tents, kayaks, fishing poles, snowshoes, boots, gloves and so on. The tax could be as low 0.1% and the amount of income would more than needed, no reason to increase resident license fees.

I'd be fine with raising the non-resident license fees. As many have said Wisconsin is way behind compared to other states. Even if they are raised I don't see that leading to a huge drop off in out of state hunters. I've talked to a few hunters from Illinois and they know what a deal they are getting when it comes to hunting in Wisconsin. Illinois and other states can pay a higher license fee.

Resident fees really aren't that high. If they went up 5.00 it probably wouldn't break anyone. But it would generate a decent amount of revenue.

I'm fine with a license fee hike for residents, but non-residents should pay the same we as non-residents would in their states. Myself I'd like to see an increase on permits, such as bear, bobcat, fisher,etc. Maybe it would weed out the ones that never plan on using them if they draw. I also would like to see more law enforcement in the field.

We are taxed enough in Wisconsin. That's why so many leave the state when they retire. Hiking non-resident fees would give the DNR a enough to do what they need to do. Hunting licenses are nothing more than a tax. Do some research and see what other states charge residence to hunt deer. You may be shocked.

Round up the resident for to $30 and raise non-res to $200. Keep the conservation license the same to entice more to take advantage of its value.

Take a hard look at their budgets for hunting& fishing . IF 100 % of the money collected would go to fish and hunt . we would have a surplus . Very unhappy with Walkers handling of the DNR .

Tweed, good point, there used to be far more patrons as it was such a good deal. They then dropped bear and sturgeon spearing off for sure, maybe more, and increased the price. I still get it but could save a few bucks buying separate as I don't do everything I used to do. Non-resident to at least $200 a good idea to start and see what happens. Putting it the same as out west with far fewer hunters and such awesome wild lands is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

So hunter numbers are going down and the response is to raise license fees? That'll get more hunters... really? Like others, i don't have a problem with higher prices if non-hunter land-users also contribute; but if hunter numbers are diminishing, raising fees would do nothing to help, and the sum of the revenue would not add up to as much anyways.

On the other hand, I doubt that license fees has as much to do with the reduced hunter trend as lack of hunting land access. If they take every penny of increased fees to purchase hunting land and improve habitat i'd be all in. The money would be spent but it may lead to a much needed movement to increase hunters... and thus increase revenue. We need a long term solution. Not one that increases fees from a certain recreational group that is diminishing. That's just putting a finger in a hole in the dam.

However, that would take a commitment to improve habitat in order to increase deer carrying capacity. That would be a pro-hunting action. Unfortunately, the political trends and goals of the liberals and special interest groups are to rid the world of hunting.

Also, the state should quit letting owners of forest crop open land change the land over to the forest crop closed option before their contract expires. I know they pay a penalty (I wonder how much) when they do that but just does not seem right. More huntable land lost every time.

If Wisconsin is going to raise hunting license fees then they should go with the recriprocal approach. That is, a non resident pays what nonresidents pay in their state of residence for the same species. In addition, if that other state requires additional licenses to get a license for something then the nonresident here needs to buy that other license too. For example, if you buy an Iowa deer license you must also buy a small game license and if you buy a buck license you must also buy a doe license.

I believe Wisconsin's last deer hunting license fee increase was 2005. I have no problem paying "a little" more but agree non-residents could be hiked first. Also like the possibility suggested in the report of creating a registration fee for non-motorized watercraft such as canoes and kayaks and never increasing fees for people who buy licenses every year (nice reward). A lifetime license many years ago when numbers were high may have been a good idea, too. Still maybe not too late for that?

Here's a thought, why not allow the sportsman to choose what license they want to purchase with your sportsman's license. I don't gun hunt anymore, why not let me substitute an archery license in place of a gun license. It's been a long time since I purchased a sportsman's license, I don't even know what is included anymore. Allow the sportsman to choose what license they would like to package. Would this increase revenue, maybe maybe not. Just a thought.

Konk +1

There is a "kill 2 birds with one stone" solution. If the DNR finds a way to increase open land available for hunting. They will retain more and create new hunters which is more revenue. This could be sweetening the pot for the VPA program, or opening some of the closed public lands. Although it may take a large initial investment, I believe the roi would be substantial. Not only that, they would be tackling the shrinking access problem and the supposed recruitment problem.

Rut, perhaps a qualifier might be "prime" lands available for hunting, since there are already more than seven million acres of land in Wisconsin open to public hunting. However — and just generalizing here, as there are some very nice public parcels — large sections aren't exactly desirable for attracting/retaining hunters due to low deer numbers from low quality habitat, hard winters, wolves and past harvest, or, higher hunting pressure in the southern two-thirds of the state.

Naz , 7mil public seems rather high ,could you break that down to the acreage amount? Example, National forest,county forests etc.

Naz, that's where trying to entice more landowners into VPA or a similar program would be beneficial.

I thought the reduce costs for tags and licenses was a dumb idea,,,,,, giving seniors a break is what I thnk they should do...................otherwise I agree with Ruger, and do not trust the present politicians on how the money is being distributed......

Agree Rut. Steve, that info is out there with a lot of Googling. It involves county, state and national forests, DNR wildlife areas and state park open areas, some county parks, some city properties (bow by permit), open MFL and FCL lands, VPA lands, U.S. FWS open areas, land trust and conservancy open areas and farms in the crop abatement program (that's all I can think of at the moment, may be missing one or two). Did research on it a few years back for a public lands piece. If I can dig it up later I'll post, otherwise the math is right, over 7 million open to public deer hunting (including limited private lands as noted above through tax law, trust/conservancy and VPA/crop damage programs).

many of us live, eat and breath anything hunting/fishing all year long. A nominal increase will only hurts for a second at the register, thinking big picture.

This was back in September NRB meeting, no fee hikes approved at that time. Agree with above comment and can't understand all the negative comments appearing on any news stories (print or TV) online. Some of these guys likely spend more money on cigarettes in a day than they would on a year's increase to a deer tag. That's just one example of a he&& of a lot worse ways to waste money.

The problems Naz are with accountability, I have no problem paying more, if someone on the other side, has a sharp pencil,,,,,,, I am sorry, but I do not want my hunting and trapping dollars going to any programs, that are not specific for hunting and trapping.........

too many of our dollars are spent on nonsense, and the mountain bike trail by my house where I know for a fact, they tapped into the money, was used for part of it, because I went to the source and asked

The DNR would lose money with me. I buy a patrons and use about 1/2 of it.

Can't tell you the last time I used a park sticker, pheasant stamp, Great Lakes stamp, didn't small game hunt and so on.

Buy what I need and would save a lot over the donation of the patrons license.

The people throwing tantrums about a fee increase and threatening to quit. Are exactly the type of people we don't need. Needle point sounds more their style.

Rut, if I run out of money I'll give you my account number feel free to put a couple K in anytime you feel.

It's not any different or are you ready to take up knitting?

Dt- I don't think your going to run out of money if the resident fee was increased. I would increase non resident to $250 and resident to $30. Anyone who cannot afford it can take up knitting.

I think people are fixating on a possible license fee increase albeit enforced by the media. There haven't been any funding sources targeted by the legislature. There are hundreds of options for increases in funding or decreases in spending. An increase in licenses is just one possibility. It's not worth worrying about or threatening to quit hunting until someone actually proposes it. For all we know it could all be made up for with an increase in wastewater fees.

What I'm getting at is there needs to be accountability in all phases of government not just the DNR. They need to learn to stay within their budgets like we do. You can't continue to out spend and raise fee's. There is a breaking point where cost outweighs value.

I have no qualms at raising non res fee's to get them more in line with other states. I just paid 225.00 to hunt MO last week.

"What I'm getting at is there needs to be accountability in all phases of government not just the DNR. They need to learn to stay within their budgets like we do. You can't continue to out spend and raise fee's. There is a breaking point where cost outweighs value. "

+1 That "cost outweighs the value" part is a very important point. Many people feel that deer hunting in Wisconsin is nowhere close to being an enjoyable, satisfying experience as it used to be due to the DNR managing the resource into the ground with their liberal tags, CWD bs scare tactics, sharp-shooters, etc. These are the people that have the biggest problem with the idea of a license increase, and unfortunately from my travels and talking with many hunters on a regular basis there are A LOT of people that feel this way, and probably a lot more coming as hunting opportunities continue to decrease. Personally I wouldn't mind paying a bit more but then again my deer hunting still remains enjoyable and productive since I hunt private lands that have not been managed down the crapper like for instance the DNR's public lands have. I'd say raise non-res fees which is long overdue, but anything more than that could cause a ripple the DNR does not need right now.

What about a break, for seniors, you know those who have been paying the way for the last 50 years...................................... I will defend the DNR on this one, they do not run deer mgt, the legislators due,,,,,, wake up

Seniors do get a break on licenses.

I think everyone is forgetting that deer/hunting is only a little piece of what the DNR does. Also don't know if anyone is aware that the DNR is the only agency that has proposed a budget lower than they were instructed to as part of the realignment.

"I will defend the DNR on this one, they do not run deer mgt, the legislators due,,,,,," But only the for last few years. The herd and management of it had been declining for quite some time, that was why legislators were asked to help.

The license gives you the right to hunt. Charge a 20$ harvest fee per deer. That may cut back on some of the game pigs seeing how many they can kill in a season. A-HOLES

I must have missed something, I did not see a difference in my price for a CP license, ,,,,,,,, what am I missing?

Register here to reply to this topic