Casting for Solutions at Fish and Game

Here are some ideas:

1. New Hampshire has some of the highest sport fishing and hunting license fees in the nation. The state must return value to the sport fishing and hunting licenses to stimulate sales. I believe this could be achieved by eliminating specialty licenses (e.g., turkey, pheasant, bear), while concurrently increasing the base license fee slightly. This will take some analysis to determine the proper fee, but the rational is that there are more total hunters than turkey hunters so that getting $2 (for example) more from all hunters might raise more revenues than obtained by charging $6 more from only turkey hunters. This approach would certainly make the basic hunting license have more value.

2. Dedicate 100% of the net revenues from sales of “moose” license plates to wildlife programs within Fish and Game. I suspect many people do not understand how the revenues from that program are currently expended. In addition, create a “fish” license plate with net revenues from sales going to fisheries programs in Fish and Game.

3. Move all enforcement and search and rescue operations out of Fish and Game. Create a subunit within the New Hampshire State Police for these functions. This would save administrative costs and enable Fish and Game to focus on research and management activities.

4. Everyone who lives in New Hampshire benefits directly or indirectly from Fish and Game’s activities to maintain healthy fish and wildlife populations. Therefore, the general population should also contribute to the funds needed by Fish and Game. I won’t suggest a mechanism, but I don’t believe we should try to assess a fee primarily on visitors by targeting room and meals tax.

Fish and Game has a ready revenue stream already in place, it's just being diverted by another department.

All us boaters are paying a gasoline road tax of 18 cents per gallon every time we fill up at the marina. The boater can apply for a refund from the Department of Safety, Road Toll Bureau, but they make it a pain to apply for the monies. These monies should be allocated to the Marine Safety and Fish and Game as they are the two agencies that are actually supplying the boaters with services!!!!

Don't let the road construction lobby tell you they deserve the monies. When I move my boat across the roads I pay the road tax. You folks should have the marinas and boat-gas stations send the monies directly to you.

I am in favor of and appreciate the majority of the recreactional, wildlife and conversation programs provided by the New Hampshire Fish and Game. It is very clear that the agency provides broad services for more than recreational boaters, hunting and fishing. Given this, any future fees need be based on a fair system which includes all those that use the outdoor resources. Boaters, hunters and fishermen should not be singled out to pay these fees. The fee system should include all activities - hiking, shoeshoeing, mountain biking, boating, cross country sking, tubing, bird watching, walkers, swimming, etc. The problem with any decal approach is that it does not include any user that does not have or use any type of sporting euipment. Also, someone who uses snowshoes should not have to pay to walk in the woods when someone on foot does not need to pay. Someone boating on a river should not have to pay when someone tubing or swimming does not. I am a whitewater kayaker, sea kayaker and biker. I have six boats and four bikes. I can only use one of these at a time. If i need to register all these items, I will paying up to 10X what another might be paying for the same services. Would a hunter register every gun? Would a fisherman register every fishing rod? Any fee needs to be user based not equipment based.
Aklso, the programs provided by this department benefit all those living in this state not just the outdoor sporting people. As an example, this agency could be called upon to help find a lost child who was wandered away from a family picnic. Funds for this department need to come form a more general source of revenue like evry other state agency which benifits all the people. I would also be in favor of any per capita fee on anyone living in this state.

SMD Lancaster
I agree with most of the posted ideas I have seen here today. However I want to provide an idea I have seen used in Colorado that I think has some merit and may be an alternative to Item #3 that "ALLEN" posted. It also answers some of the equipment based objections that have been raised.
Colorado has an anual hiking or wilderness permit which is optional....with only one creative wrinkle....if you need to be rescued or assisted by F&G, you are charged the entire cost of the operation..he's the kicker...ONLY if you DON'T have a hiking permit. The permit is automatically part of your hunting / fishing fee as to not further burden those folks. It could also be part of other tag fees as well. I don't know how successful they are on collecting the rescue fees but most people I knew found the $1 or $2 permit cheap insurance and bought it every year, knowing the funds helped F&G do their job. You might want to check with them for more info.

Dear NHPR & fellow NH citizens:

I don't think that NH Public Radio ought to be the mouthpiece of the NH Fish & Game Department, as it appears to me it is. Ms. Knoy's bias in favor of NH F&G was quite evident when she wondered out loud whether people enjoying the woods say "thank you" to the Fish & Game Department.

Ms. Knoy for NHPR is too ready to accept the pronouncements of NH Fish & Game Department as the truth. She coordinated no real "exchange" of ideas about the Department that would question whether or not the hunters, anglers, and trappers ought to remain in charge of the Department, and especially its funding, given that they have brought the Department to this crisis, and have allowed many nongame wildlife species to decline through decades of neglect.

What would help the NH public is a critical look at how the hunter domination and control over NH Fish & Game, and thereby, over all wildlife, has led the agency to do things to benefit hunting, fishing, and trapping programs much more than the diversity of wildlife and habitat. NHPR ought to examine how re-structuring NH F&G and re-examining its priorities can help bring about a true "wildlife agency" that provides services in balance with the level of need for each service required by the public.

Sincerely,
Suzanne L. Fournier
Milford, NH

As a NH family getting ready to purchase kayaks for (hopefully) each member of the family and start to enjoy the great benefits of such a sport, we are thrilled to support the Fish and Wildlife! We aren't wealthy by any means but see it as our obligation to this great state and our children to make any effort to protect our open spaces and waters. We do hike and are happy to pay our parking fees and a paddling fee would be paid with the same smile knowing that our dollars are going to a great cause and the future. We deserve the open spaces, our children deserve them, and my great great grandchildren will deserve them. Why would I complain about $10 a year when that is less than what it cost to take the family to McD?
As 1 caller stated, for someone who loves any kind of outing You couldnt charge me enough to make me stop paddling. What else can you do for 10 dollars that can give you so much enjoyment for a whole year?