About six months ago I submitted my bimonthly article to Ken Kreis to be included in the upcoming issue. I later got a call from Ken informing me that while some of the article was fine, there was some of it that the Federation could not print. Part of the article had contained opinion and information of Chronic Wasting Disease. Since it had been found in NY. State earlier in the year & Vermont had just banned baiting for deer {this was used as an additional reason why to ban baiting, although antis have been at this for a while over there} & my clients and I do a lot of bow hunting in the WMNF where there are not a lot of deer & we use bait, this was subject of great concern to me. Ken’s point of view was two fold. One some of my “facts” were incorrect. Second, since there were game farms {the thrust of that part of my article} that advertise in the Federation paper that they should not run that part of the article because of the risk of offending these people. Sound enough thinking. You do not want to bite the hand that feeds you. Well not to hard anyway. He was kind enough send me some published information on CWD. Seems that I did have some things wrong, but my thrust still seems valid to me. The article, “ Stirring the pot” can be read on my website northernguideservices.com.

Ken & I talked some more to try to come up with an alternative article. He mentioned to me that funding for NHF&G was a hot topic now. He related to me some of the “ rumors” that were running rampart through the Capital City & the outdoor community. Seems that the scuttlebutt has 2007 as being the last year that the NHF&G will have enough funding from the sales of hunting and fishing licenses to be self-sufficient. Once that occurs that, there is no longer enough funding for the dept by these means that the Dept. will be divided in to at least two parts. The administration and management parts of the NHF&G would come under the control of the DRED Dept, & NHF&G Law enforcement would be under the control NH State Police. To me that seemed to pose some SERIOUS problems for the state and her wildlife. This is something that needs to be looked at.

Since I had already written an article for the fall, & I was booked solid for the fall. I knew that this was going to be a long-term project & was unsure when I would have time to complete this article. Which I mentioned to Ken & then the Director while we chatted. You may have read his article in Hawkeye in the fall about this very subject. I just decided that I might be able to give it a bit of a different light.

As we talked it became apparent that with the current funding avenues and amounts that they generate would only fund the dept. through 2007. Even with that the dept. was/will be making sacrifices such as no general salary increases for dept employees. Extending the duration of dept. vehicles & computers, due to lacking of capital to purchase new ones. Which is kind of a double edge sword as we all know the longer you drive it the more it cost in maintenance to run it. In addition, outdated technology such as old computers makes it much more difficult for the people in the dept. to do their jobs in an efficient manner. Therefore, the savings there are rather dubious. “Relocating federal funds from the Wildlife Journal television program to the fisheries and wildlife management programs. This will result in cancellation of this program if a new source of revenue can not be secured.”

You are paying Paul with the money you stole from Peter, & eventually Peter will want HIS money.

The basic problem is that the NHF&G is a self funded Dept. Dependent totally on the sale of hunting & fishing licenses. The trend nationally & with this state is a decline in license sales. The Dept. responsibilities stretch far beyond just hunting & fishing. Responsibilities covering areas that provide no funding to the Department, at all. Such as hikers, search & rescue efforts for outdoor people that once again do not have direct financial benefit for the Department. If any at all.

 Without addition sources of income the “Department will face a shortage of over $4 million- this is equivalent to the sale of 117,000 fishing licenses, which means we would have to triple our current sales of resident fishing licenses sold. Alternatively, stated another way, the equivalent of 25% of our workforce, 40 positions for a two-year period. Needless to say, if we were to make cuts of this magnitude the Department would look very different than it does today.”

Well I do not actually know what the consequences of such draconian steps would result in, however, I can deduce to a reasonable view the results. Directly, management of all species of fish & wildlife in the state will be affected. In no way, shape, or form, will it be in a positive manner. We would likely loose valuable information needed to set management policies.

Enforcement of the laws most likely would result higher number of violations with fewer officers to cover larger areas. At this time the law officers have a tremendous responsibility and in my opinion are spread thin enough as it is. Those gentlemen would really take it in the shorts if their numbers were reduced. They have one of the states potentially most dangerous jobs and reducing their numbers has the potential to dramatically increase the risk to them on the job.

As residents of the state, it is our responsibility, or better yet it is our duty to help solve these types of budgetary problems in the state. Why you ask should we be bothered to help solve this. After all, we elect officials to run the state & her budgetary problems. Well my answer to that is as well intention as they may be they need our input to help steer policy. They react to those that they hear. The people with the loudest voices! In other words the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Therefore, if you do not put your two cents in you really do not have the right to complain about what happens latter. Below I have made a list of suggestions that I think could be helpful. Most of the ones below are things that I thought of. There are included below, ideas that I heard from other people, guides, the director, public, & I have noted which ones they are. If any of this strike’s a cord within you or stimulates your interest to put your two cents in please do so. I certainly do not have the intelligence to come up with the answer. Maybe no one person does. I will bet though, that if enough people get involved it will make a difference. What do you think? Personally, it does not matter to me if you think these are good ideas or not. What is important that as people in the state that have a vested interest, in these matter we help solve the problem. I want to provoke you to help come up with solutions. We need dynamic involvement with dynamic ideas. We need common sense people to come up with common sense ideas. We NEED everyday people just going about their busy lives to give enough of a damn to help. No idea is to small or insignificant. For the want of a penny, the kingdom was lost. No idea or suggestion in not worth putting out there. It could be just the one needed to make the dollar to save the kingdom.

In any event, to put my “money” where my mouth is. I am going to donate the difference between the two resident guide’s licenses I hold & their cost to me. Moreover, what my suggested increase for those licenses fees to the director to apply where he needs to use it. Once again, I’m not smart enough to say where it should go. That is Director Perry’s job, & I will let him do it!

 

Potential new revenue areas for NHF&G.

1. Raise resident guide license fees to $100 per license.
2. Raise Nonresident guide license fees to $250 per license.
3. Establish new categories for guide license. Such as A. whitewater, B. rock/ice climbing, C. camping/hiking/canoe camping, D. motorized recreation ATV/ Snowmobile, E. Outdoor recreation, leading nature excursions, snowshoeing/cross-country skiing ECT. F. Animal recreation, such as horse back riding or using lama’s for trekking/hiking.
4. Charge enough for the various licenses to make it financially feasible to do & the management of the license and the professionals conducting this business.
5. Require operations that rent outdoor equipment, kayaks/snowshoes etc. to pay a fee to do so. It should be based, on the amount of rentals they have.
6. In, out of state promotion stress the ability to hunt seven days a week. Make sure to mention that Sunday hunting is legal.
7. Require people that are going to go into “ wilderness or remote areas” to take and pass course on survival. Negotiate with the AMC for them to perform this. Charge a fee for this course.
8. Charge organizations such as the AMC that make money off of our state outdoor resources. A fee or tax based on their gross income. That should include any/all nonprofit business.
9. The state has an existing business profits tax. A course of direction could be to use that established tax system for garnering income from some of these suggested sources.
10. Suggestions from other source’s/guides. 11.&12.
11. Raise the price of out of state moose applications and licenses.
12. Raise the price of additional out of state tags such as bear, archery deer, and special archery deer.
13. Create a special bear, archery season/tag. Implemented so it does not have a negative effect on the desired harvest numbers. Therefore, it does not increase the harvest numbers significantly.
14. Require out of state hunters to purchase a special tag to hunt coyote.
15. In states such as Michigan & Minnesota, bear permits are implemented in a lottery much like our moose lottery. If not for the general hunting population, then for out of state hunters.
16. On the W.M.N.F. any person or organization that operate & receives any kind of renumeration, of any kind, must pay a users fee. Different activities have different designations. A similar program could be implemented for state lands. The percentage of funds raised from the activities that were conducted on these lands, that were overseen or governed by NHF&G could go to the dept.

 

It is important to realize that out of state sportspeople consider NH to be a cheap hunt/fish. Especially when compared to other states. This is a point that is continually mentioned to me by my clients. Particularly the ones that hunt/fish more than one additional state other than their own states. Moose & bear are the two species that out of state hunter gush about how CHEAP it is to hunt those species here. Those two species are not common across the nation as is the whitetail deer. The department can take advantage of that fact by implementing a lottery for bears for out of state licenses as we have for moose. Charge more for out of state applications and out of state prices for the tags. The people that want to hunt here because of those species will still hunt hear, because even with raising prices we will still be a cheap hunt/fish for most of them. This idea could also be considered for turkey as well. Like Maine does.

Now those are all ways to help raise funds for the dept. The other side of the coin is to reduce expenses. This can be accomplished, in various ways. One way is as mentioned above to reduce capitol expenditures. As I mentioned there, that can be tricky as things wear out over time. They then cost more to repair & to replace. The further you advance the time line the more it cost down the line. There are still other possibilities to lower the operating cost’s of NHF&G, thus increasing money available to run it.

However before I can go forward, I need to backup. Sound familiar to any one? Fish and Game is a self-funded agency, {I wonder how many other dept. are self-funded in the state, the answer is eight.}. Well that was simple enough to me. All business operations of the department were covered by the dept. Therefore, wages and fringe benefits, fuel, paper, vehicles & other operating expenses are the department’s responsibility. Ok. Still simple enough. But what came as a surprise to me, was that the department covered  health insurance premiums for the people who retired while employed by the Department. Now this does not seem to make sense to me. I know that the state has a general fund to take care of most of these expenses for other state retirees. I strongly believe that in recognition of the greater public benefits that fish and game provides; it would be reasonable for the General Fund to pay benefits for people who are no longer working for the Department. Nevertheless, who provided service to all people of the state for the many years they worked for the state. In other word’s, the State of NH General fund should pick up all of the medical benefits for the people that have served the state for the greater good for many years and are now retired.

If these actions were undertaken it not only would reduce the shortfall at the NHF&G Department, it would in a small way recognize the great contributions that the Department and its employees provide to  the state!!!