Nov. 26–JEROME, Idaho — Idaho Department of Fish and Game brass will pitch a new way to squeeze more revenue from hunters and anglers by creating incentives for them to purchase a license every year.
Under the new proposal, Fish and Game would raise all resident licenses, tags and permits by 20 percent in 2015, but then lock in rates at 2013 prices for those who continue to buy an annual license each year.
“If everyone bought a license every year, we’d be in pretty good shape revenue-wise,” said Sharon Kiefer, Fish and Game’s deputy director.
Kiefer presented an update on the proposal to the Fish and Game Commission during its quarterly meeting held in Jerome Thursday. Kiefer said the proposal has two parts, both of which were approved earlier this week by the governor’s office for staff to present to the Idaho Legislature when it convenes later this year.
Kiefer also received support from commission members Thursday to withdraw its other two proposals to strengthen support for the fee restructure.
“If this is our highest priority to talk about this session, then if you have other kinds of proposals that deal with fees that aren’t as important, strip them away,” she said. “They will just create diversion and people will just use them to create confusion and you really need to focus.”
Cash-strapped
The department is short $3 million in revenue this year from what the Idaho Legislature has allowed them to spend. Fish and Game has been falling short of its revenue goals since 2008, which has affected the department in ways that include fish stocking programs and how quickly department positions are filled.
When Fish and Game looked at its revenue situation, Kiefer said it realized there is a significant number of people who have purchased licenses through the years, but many are not constant buyers. The bulk of the department’s money for managing wildlife comes from license and tag fees or the excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, she said.
The department could simply raise fees again, she said, but the economy has been tough on hunters and anglers and there is a threshold to what they will pay.
The department has not raised resident license fees since 2005. But in 2009, when it raised non-resident fees, three things went wrong — out-of-state fees spiked, the hunting was beginning to be affected by wolves and the economy tanked. Fish and Game saw a bit of a turnaround in non-resident sales this year, but the economic recession’s effects still linger.
The increase also made Idaho one of the most expensive states for out-of-state hunters in the area.
Since then, that has changed, but Kiefer said Fish and Game has “saturated the market” on non-resident fees and couldn’t be any higher.
So, the new structure would mainly target resident license purchasers.
“For those individuals who are going to purchase some sort of annual license every year, you would be able to say, ‘Yes, we have got a 2015 fee increase, but you, constant customer, will continue to purchase under our 2013 prices,'” she told the commission. “Because we know the revenue from constant license purchase is as important, or more important, than what we might gain from a fee increase.”
Kiefer said modeling has backed up that claim — if you could encourage 20 percent of the people who bought fishing licenses once over the last 13 years to buy them annually, it would generate about $350,000.
An Equalizer
Kiefer also pitched the fee structure as an equalizer for pressure on wildlife. She reasoned that those infrequent license purchasers have the same expectation of Fish and Game than those who are consistently paying into the system.
“It is going to cost you some more to kind of filter in and out and still expect just as many fish in the reservoir,” she said.
If the Legislature approves the two bills, they would come back to the commission for final approval after sportsmen weigh in. If approved, the discount authority would also allow the commission more power over other incentives.
“Hypothetically, you buy a license and four tags, we’ll give you a 10 percent discount. Buy a license and eight tags, we’ll give you a 20 percent discount,” Kiefer said.
The proposal would also triple the nonrefundable application fee for hunters seeking moose, sheep and goat tags, but would drop the requirement that hunters pay upfront for the tag whether or not they draw one.
“Whether they draw it or not, right now we are making them pay for it upfront and so what happens is we end up having to handle and reimburse about $5 million a year,” she said. “From a financial risk standpoint, that’s probably not the smartest thing for us to be doing.”
The proposal would also increase the daily and consecutive-day fishing license by 20 percent for residents and non-residents.
“We’ve analyzed the surrounding states and we are actually on the low side, that is a popular product and that folks would be willing to entertain a small increase in that,” Kiefer said.
Commission chairman Bob Barowsky said he thinks the proposal is a great one. He said he’s not nervous about trying a structure not seen in other states because of his faith in Fish and Game staff.
“It is a great concept and I hope it works the way we are anticipating and projecting it to work out,” said Barowsky, a Fruitland resident, “in other words to keep all of our sportsmen buying every year and build a steady income base.”
Wolf Control
In addition to filling Fish and Game positions without delay and stepping up fish stocking programs, Kiefer said, the increased cash would likely go toward additional wolf control measures.
The impact wolves have had on the state’s elk herds was the most talked about subject during a public comment hearing Wednesday night. Predator control was also the biggest topic concerning hunters in their comments on the state’s draft elk management plan.
Kiefer said a three-legged proposal to invest in more wolf control consists of sportsman funds, money from the agriculture industry and general fund money, she said, adding the concept has yet to be written into a bill.
The idea would generate about $300,000 annually, which would go toward helping a federal funding shortfall of $700,000 for the same purpose, she said.
“With the overall status of the federal budget, their funding has been cut substantially,” she said. “So the state’s interest — sportsmen and agriculture interests — have been looking into if there is a way to backfill, specifically for wolf control, that funding that’s been lost so that state management and needs and objectives are being met.”